- Cultural and historical background of Jesus
Scholars examine the cultural and historical background of Jesus in order to better understand Jesus, his ministry, and the origins of Christianity. This examination treats the
New Testamentas one of many documents, written and perhaps later edited by people who wanted others to believe as they did, which can be used to piece together a more complete and authentic understanding of the life and times of Jesusand the founding of early Christianity.
The cultural and historical context of
Jesusis that of Galileeand Judea(modern day Israel; Palestine; and Jordan) during the first half of the first century.
Following the break-down of earlier Jewish kingdoms and a variety of contested rulership claims, various groups held differing political and religious points of view regarding possibilities of a revival of sovereignty – either nationalistic or religious in nature – creating social tension.
By 63 BCE, the partially-
Hellenizedterritory had come under Roman imperial rule as a valued crossroads to trading territories. The Roman Prefect’s first duty to Rome was to maintain order, through his political appointee the High Priest. In general, Roman Judea was peaceful and self-managed, however riots, sporadic rebellions, and violent resistance were an ongoing risk. The conflict between the Jews’ demand for religious independence and Rome's efforts to impose a common system of governance upon its entire empire (including in religious and cultural matters) meant there was a constant underlying tension alongside peaceful governance, with minor outbreaks common. Four decades after Jesus’ death the tensions culminated with the first Jewish-Roman Warand the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which in turn catalysed the final stage in the birth and divergence of Early Christianityand Rabbinic Judaism.
Historical method and Jesus
Research by historians and biblical scholars into the life and times of
Jesusis a subject of ongoing debate. This is usually approached through the studies of critical Bible scholars [Most critical Bible scholars and historians consider the Gospels this way. Exceptions include such scholars as Paul L. Maier (vice president Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod), D. A. Carson(professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), who study the Bible and its historical context as Christians, and treat the Gospels as broadly reliable historic documents.] and historians, who accept the Gospels as valid historical sources, but examine them critically, as they would any other historical source.
Many scholars and other students of the
Historical Jesusbelieve that an account of his life must be viewed, and can only make sense when placed within his historical and cultural context, rather than purely in terms of Christian orthodoxy [Fredriksen, Paula (1988. "From Jesus to Christ" ISBN 0-300-04864-5] [Sanders, E.P. (1987). "Jesus and Judaism", Fortress Press ISBN 0-8006-2061-5] . Such a study foregrounds the forces which were at play in the Jewish and Roman cultures at that time, and the tensions, trends, and changes in the region under the influence of Hellenism and Roman occupation.
Pre-Roman historical background
Jews living in 1st-century Judea struggled with issues of law, religion, tradition, history, and culture, many of which went back over a thousand years. While small, Judea had long been a crossroads of mighty ancient empires in
Egypt, Mesopotamiaand Anatolia. [H.H. Ben-Sasson, "A History of the Jewish People", page 4: "The net result [of exposure to Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Anatolian and Mycenaean culture] was the engendering on the soil of Palestine of a dynamic spiritual and material creativity that expressed itself in continual change and renewal and never lapsed into tranquil passivity."] The Jews partially adapted to the resulting cultural influences and partially resisted them. This section summarizes Jewish history from the First Temple Era, to the emergence of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, and the capture of Jerusalem by the Romans in 63 BCE.
First temple era
The institutions and issues that influenced Roman Judea had their origins some centuries earlier, around 1000-586 BCE, in the so-called "First Temple Era". [The history of ancient Israel (in the context of
Judeo-Christianity) is often divided by historians into two periods - the time of the First Temple (from its construction by Solomon around 1000 BCE through to its destruction by the Babylonians in 586 BCE, and the time of the Second Templefrom its construction around 536 BCE until its final destruction by the Romans around 70 CE. According to Orthodox Jews, the Third Templewill be built at some future time, either by the Moshiach(future Jewish messiah) or as part of the Messianic Age, and that to attempt to build it before then without divine direction would be a great violation of Jewish law.] First century Jewswere mostly impoverished and politically marginalized. Various Jewish elites and social movements, grappling with both their own heterogeneous beliefs and practices and Hellenistic culture, and in competition for secular and religious power, argued over religious and politically significant issues such as the status of the Temple in Jerusalem, laws and values embodied in sacred scriptures, the restoration of a monarchy, Jewish sovereignty, and the Kingdom of God.
Priests and Kings
The religion of ancient Israel, like those of most ancient Near Eastern societies, centered on a Temple, served by a caste of priests, who sacrificed offerings to their god. Priests (
Kohens) claimed descent from Aaronof the tribe of Levi, who was believed to have been appointed by God to care for the Tabernacleand perform the priestly rituals. During the First Temple Era the priests were limited to their work in the Temple; political power officially rested in the hands of a king who was believed to rule by divine right.
In ancient Israel, as in most societies at that time, the priesthood was closely tied with the monarchy. According to the Hebrew Bible, the first Israelite king was Saul, of the
tribe of Benjamin, although the tribe of Judahanointed Saul's protegeé and son-in-law, David as their own king after Saul's and his son's death in the battle with the Philistines (bibleverse|1|Samuel|31:2-10; bibleverse|2|Samuel|2:4). After David reigned over Judah seven years and six months, he became king of all the tribes of Israel (bibleverse|2|Samuel|5:1-5). Although this kingdom fragmented after the death of David's son Solomon, the dominant narrative in the Hebrew Bible portrays the house of David as the legitimate royal lineage, chosen by God (II Sam 7:11-16). Psalms 2: 7 and 89: 26–27 refer to David as the son of God; most interpret the word "son" in these contexts metaphorically, in accordance with usual ancient Hebrew poetic style, to mean that God loved David and that there would be a descendant of David who would be as a son to God, either spiritually, or in terms of love, or pleasing to God, rather than literally. Geza Vermeshas argued that the term "son of God" was often used to refer to the monarch.
Both the Temple and the Davidic Monarchy were destroyed by the
Babylonians in 586 BCE, when most Jews were forced into exile.
In most ancient Near Eastern societies sacrifice was the primary form of worship, and many such societies also had myths about gods as well as laws which they believed were given to them by gods. The Children of Israel similarly had sacred texts (which would later be redacted into the
Torah), which they believed were written by prophets under divine inspiration, or dictated by God himself.
In addition to being lawgivers and
social reformers, various prophets also forcefully criticized the king, elites, or the masses and provided visions of a better life (stories about, and writings purportedly by, these prophets were eventually redacted into the Tanakhin the Second Temple Era). In the south (the kingdom of Judah, or Judea), the tradition was epitomized by prophets like Isaiahand Jeremiah, who primarily addressed issues of collective (national or communal) concern. In the north (the kingdom of Israel), it was epitomized by Elijahand Elisha, who healed people and performed other miracles, and who primarily addressed issues of individual (private or personal) concern (Crossan 1992: 137-167). These prophets were a potent political force.
econd Temple Era
The Second Temple Era started with the rebuilding of the Temple (6th century BCE) and ends with its destruction (70 CE). This section covers the remainder of pre-Roman history.
The Persian Period
In 539 BCE the
Persians conquered Babylon and in 537 BCE, inaugurated the Persian period of Jewish history. In 520 BCE Cyrus the Greatallowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple (completed 515 BCE). He appointed Zerubbabel(the grandson of the second to last Judean king, Jehoiachin) governor, but did not allow the restoration of the kingdom. (The influence of Zoroastrianismon monotheism, Judaism, as well as Christianity are still the subject of academic debate.)
Without the constraining power of the monarchy, the authority of the Temple was amplified, and priests became the dominant authority. However, the
Second Templehad been constructed under the auspices of a foreign power, and there were lingering questions about its legitimacy. This provided the condition for various sects to develop within Judaism over the coming centuries, each of which claimed to represent "Judaism". Most of these typically discouraged social intercourse, especially marriage, with members of other sects.
The end of the Babylonian Exile saw not only the construction of the Second Temple, but, according to the
Documentary Hypothesis, the final redaction of the Torahas well. Although the priests controlled the monarchy and the Temple, scribes and sages (who later became the " rabbis") monopolized the study of the Torah, which (starting from the time of Ezra) was read publicly on market-days. These sages developed and maintained an oral tradition alongside of the Holy Writ, and identified with the prophets. According to Geza Vermes, such scribes were often addressed using a basic term of respect, "lord."
The Hellenistic Period
The Hellenistic period of Jewish history began in
332 BCEwhen Alexander the Greatconquered Persia. Upon his death in 323 BCE, his empire was divided among his generals. At first, Judea was ruled by the Egyptian-Hellenic Ptolemies, but in 198 BCE, the Syrian-Hellenic Seleucid Empire, under Antiochus III, seized control over Judea.
The Near East was cosmopolitan, especially during the Hellenistic period. Several languages were used, and the matter of the "lingua franca" is still subject of some debate. The Jews almost certainly spoke
Aramaicamong themselves. Greek was at least to some extent a trade language in the region, and indeed throughout the entire eastern portion of the Mediterranean. Judaism was rapidly changing, reacting and adapting to a larger political, cultural, and intellectual world, and in turn drawing the interests of non-Jews.Historian Shaye Cohen observed::All the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period, of both the diaspora and the land of Israel, were Hellenized, that is, were integral parts of the culture of the ancient world. Some varieties of Judaism were more hellenized than others, but none was an island unto itself. It is a mistake to imagine that the land of Palestine preserved a "pure" form of Judaism and that the diaspora was the home of adulterated or diluted forms of Judaism. The term " Hellenistic Judaism" makes sense, then, only as a chronological indicator for the period from Alexander the Great to the Macabees or perhaps to the Roman conquests of the first century BCE. As a descriptive term for a certain type of Judaism, however, it is meaningless because all the Judaisms of the Hellenistic period were "Hellenistic." (Cohen 1987: 37)
The Hellenistic Period saw the canonization of the
Tanakh(Hebrew Bible), according to some theories, see Development of the Jewish Bible canonfor details, and the emergence of extra-Biblical sacred traditions. At the same time that Jews were confronting the cultural differences at their door, they had to confront a paradox in their own tradition: their Torah laws applied only to them (for the most part, but see also Rules for proselytes in the Torah), but their God, they believed, was the one and only God of all. This situation led to new interpretations of the Torah, some of which were influenced by Hellenic thought and in response to Gentile interest in Judaism. It was in this period that many concepts from early Greek philosophyentered or influenced Judaism, as well as debates and sects within the religion and culture of the time.
The Hasmonean period
Generally, the Jews accepted foreign rule when they were only required to pay tribute, and otherwise allowed to govern themselves internally. Nevertheless, Jews were divided between those favoring hellenization and those opposing it, and were divided over allegiance to the Ptolemies or Seleucids. When the High Priest Simon II died in
175 BCE, conflict broke out between supporters of his son Onias III (who opposed hellenization, and favored the Ptolemies) and his son Jason (who favored hellenization, and favored the Seleucids). A period of political intrigue followed, with priests such as Menelaus bribing the king to win the High Priesthood, and accusations of murder of competing contenders for the title. The result was a brief civil war. Judah Maccabee liberated Jerusalem in 165 BCEand restored the Temple, and in 141 BCEan assembly of priests and others affirmed his brother Simon as high priest. When Simon was killed in 135 BCE, his son (and Judah's nephew) John Hyrcanustook his place as high priest and king.
After defeating the Seleucid forces, John Hyrcanus established a new monarchy in the form of the priestly
Hasmoneandynasty in 152 BCE— thus establishing priests as political as well as religious authorities. Although the Hasmoneans were popularly seen as heroes and leaders for resisting the Seleucids, their reign lacked the religious legitimacy conferred by descent from the Davidic dynasty of the First Temple Era.
The Emergence of the Sadducees, Essenes, and Pharisees
The rift between the priests and the sages grew during the Hellenistic period, when the Jews faced new political and cultural struggles. Around this time the Sadducee party emerged as the party of the priests and allied elites (the name "Sadducee" comes from
Zadok, the high priest of the first Temple).
Esseneswere another early mystical-religious movement, who are believed to have rejected either the Seleucid appointed high priests, or the Hasmonean high priests, as illegitimate. Ultimately, they rejected the Second Temple, arguing that the Essene community was itself the new Temple, and that obedience to the law represented a new form of sacrifice.
Although their lack of concern for the Second Temple alienated the Essenes from the great mass of Jews, their notion that the sacred could exist outside of the Temple was shared by another group, the
Pharisees("separatists"), based within the community of scribes and sages. The meaning of the name is unclear; it may refer to their rejection of Hellenic culture or to their objection to the Hasmonean monopoly on power.
During the Hasmonean period, the Sadducees and Pharisees functioned primarily as political parties (the Essenes not being as politically oriented). The political rift between the Sadducees and Pharisees became evident when Pharisees demanded that the Hasmonean king
Alexander Jannaichoose between being king and being High Priest in the traditional manner. This demand led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees, although at his deathbed the king called for a reconciliation between the two parties. Alexander was succeeded by his widow, whose brother was a leading Pharisee. Upon her death her elder son, Hyrcanus, sought Pharisee support, and her younger son, Aristobulus, sought the support of the Sadducees. The resulting civil war ended with the Roman conquest of Jerusalem.
The Roman Period
The conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus culminated in a civil war that ended abruptly when the Roman general
Pompeycaptured Jerusalemin 63 BCEand inaugurated the Roman period of Jewish history. Pompey ended the monarchy and named Hyrcanus high priest and ethnarch(a lesser title than "king"). 6 years later Hyrcanus was deprived of the remainder of political authority and ultimate jurisdiction was given to the Proconsulof Syria, who ruled through Hyrcanus's Idumaean associate Antipater, and later Antipater's two sons Phasael, military governor of Judea, and Herod (later known as Herod the Great), military governor of the Galilee. Hyrcanus became a "client ruler" of a vassalstate on behalf of the Romans. As with most Roman territories, the local ruler was obliged to provide support and tribute to Roman activities, and expected to ensure Rome was not troubled by the territory, in return for which he was otherwise allowed broad autonomy to rule as he chose. In 57 BCEthe Proconsul Cabineus (Gabinius) established five regional "synhedria" ( Sanhedrins, or councils, see also Synedrion) to regulate the internal affairs of the Jews. [ [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146;query=whiston%20chapter%3D%23182;layout=;loc=14.54 Antiquities of the Jews 14.5.4] : "And when he had ordained five councils (συνέδρια), he distributed the nation into the same number of parts. So these councils governed the people; the first was at Jerusalem, the second at Gadara, the third at Amathus, the fourth at Jericho, and the fifth at Sepphoris in Galilee." [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=229&letter=S&search=Gabinius Jewish Encyclopedia: Sanhedrin] : "Josephus uses συνέδριον for the first time in connection with the decree of the Roman governor of Syria, Gabinius (57 B.C.), who abolished the constitution and the then existing form of government of Judea and divided the country into five provinces, at the head of each of which a sanhedrin was placed ("Ant." xiv. 5, § 4)."] The Sanhedrinae was a legislative council of 71 elders chaired by the high priest, that interpreted Jewish law and adjudicated appeals, especially in ritual matters. Their specific composure and powers actually varied depending on Roman policy. In 40 BCEAristobulus's son Antigonusoverthrew Hyrcanus and named himself king and high priest, and Herod fled to Rome.
Political rule and climate during the Herodian Dynasty
In Rome, Herod the Great sought the support of
Mark Antonyand Octavian, and secured recognition by the Roman Senateas King of the Jews, [ [http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/war1.html Jewish War 1] .14.4: Mark Antony" ...then resolved to get him made king of the Jews ... told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. And when the senate was separated, Antony and Caesar went out, with Herod between them; while the consul and the rest of the magistrates went before them, in order to offer sacrifices [to the Roman gods] , and to lay the decree in the Capitol. Antony also made a feast for Herod on the first day of his reign." See also PDF| [http://www.ctsfw.edu/events/symposia/papers/sym2006steinmann.pdf] |101 KiB ] officially confirming the termination of the Hasmonean dynasty. Despite an attempt to appease the people by marrying Mariamme, a Hasmonean princess, Herod was an unpopular ruler, perceived by some as a foreigner and a Roman puppet. According to some, archaeological evidence suggests that king Herod identified himself as Jewish, although according to Jewish law, he would not be considered as such. He was the second son of Antipater the Idumaean, founder of the Herodian Dynastyand his wife Cypros, a princess from Petra in Nabatea(now part of Jordan). Actions such as his notoriously murderous treatment of his family and of the last Hasmonaeans, the purging of the Sanhedrin, [ [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=630&letter=H&search=Herod#1678 Jewish Encyclopedia: Herod I: Enmity of Alexandra] : "All the members of the Sanhedrin, with the exception of Pollio (Abṭalion) and Shemaiah, were slain."] and his grandiose modification and enlargement of the Second Temple(see: Herod's Temple), made him more disliked among pious Jews. He is said to have been a positive influence economically on the region, have kept Jewish laws fairly carefullyFact|date=February 2007, but suppressed, often in a bloody manner, all incipient protests. Herod founded a minor dynasty, which meant that several different people who feature in this context and in the Gospels were also all called "Herod".
After Herod's death in
4BCE, various radical Jewish elements rose in revolt: Judas in the Galilee, whose followers tore down the Roman Eagle that had adorned the Temple; Simon in Perea, a former slave of Herod, who burned down the royal palace at Jericho, and Athronges in Judea, a shepherd who led a two-year rebellion. The Syrian legate Varus took command of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, and immediately put down the uprisings, killing thousands of Jews by crucifixionand selling many into slavery. Rome quickly re-established governance and divided Herod's kingdom among his sons: the southern part of the territory ( Judeaand Samaria) was given to Archelaus, Herod Antipaswas named tetrarchof the Galileeand the southern Transjordan (Peraea), and Philip received the northern Transjordan ( Batanaea).
Archelaus antagonized the Jews as his father had, and in
6CE the emperor Augustusacceded to a delegation by placing Judea, Samaria and Idumea under the direct rule of a Roman prefect(or after about 44CE a procurator), and a Roman-appointed high priest instead. [ [http://earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/ant18.html Antiquities 18] ] See also Census of Quirinius. Both of these titles were administrative officers, rather than nobility. Other than Temple officers dealing with trespass within the bounds of the temple, the Prefect was the only person authorized to sentence anyone to death, seen as an essential power in maintaining rule and military discipline. As an autonomous local ruler, the prefect was not answerable to Rome for their exercise of this power, whether the person executed was Roman or Jew. They had access to limited military capability (a few thousand troops for the country, see also Legion (demon)), enough for most incidents but not enough for serious trouble, because Rome itself governed more by proxy rather than by day to day military might. In the event of a serious threat to peace, the Prefect or Procurator would request Rome's support; for Judea this would typically be provided by the Syrian legate.
The first prefect of
Iudaea Provincewas Coponius(6 - 9CE); the prefect who ruled from 26to 36CE was Pontius Pilate. Annaswas high priest from 6to 15CE, his son-in-law Caiaphasserved from 18to 36CE. Jesus is commonly believed to have preached and died around the period 29- 36CE.
tatus and governance under Roman rule
During this period Judea and Galilee were effectively semi-autonomous client-states under Roman tribute. In
57 BCEthe Proconsul Cabineus established five regional "synhedria" ( Sanhedrins, or councils) to regulate the internal affairs of the Jews. [ [http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146;query=whiston%20chapter%3D%23182;layout=;loc=14.54 Antiquities of the Jews 14.5.4] : "And when he had ordained five councils (συνέδρια), he distributed the nation into the same number of parts. So these councils governed the people; the first was at Jerusalem, the second at Gadara, the third at Amathus, the fourth at Jericho, and the fifth at Sepphoris in Galilee." [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=229&letter=S&search=Gabinius Jewish Encyclopedia: Sanhedrin] : "Josephus uses συνέδριον for the first time in connection with the decree of the Roman governor of Syria, Gabinius (57 B.C.), who abolished the constitution and the then existing form of government of Palestine and divided the country into five provinces, at the head of each of which a sanhedrin was placed ("Ant." xiv. 5, § 4)."] The Sanhedrinae was a legislative council of 71 elders chaired by the high priest, that interpreted Jewish law and adjudicated appeals, especially in ritual matters. Their specific composure and powers actually varied depending on Roman policy.
For the most part, Jews were willing to pay tribute (although they complained when it was excessive), and absolutely refused to allow a graven image in their Temple although some emperors considered imposing one. The primary tasks of the tetrarch and high priest were to collect tribute, convince the Romans not to interfere with the Temple, maintain stability, and ensure that the Jews not rebel.
This system of rule by proxy, whereby the ruler provided peace and support for Rome if needed, and gained autonomy in turn, was a delicate balance. For example, it was in the ruler's interest to collect as much tax as he could, without fomenting an unacceptable level of discontent. Likewise they could be harsh, but if they were seen as too bloody, the subjects might turn to Rome for help, and Rome (not wanting unnecessary rebellions and understanding that subject missions of this kind were not undertaken lightly) was often responsive to such pleas. Under the regional ruler would come his own administration, with individual villages, towns and subject populations usually being ruled by their own native elders and other leaders. Thus, with the exception of matters such as overall policy and tax, most of day to day life in the region was effectively self-governing by the subject population.
Popular understanding says that the Jews under Rome were a highly oppressed people. Whilst there were oppressive taxes at times, brutal or ruthless rulers in regard to insurrection, and occasional friction over religious matters, for the most part it was a tried and tested system of rule that worked very well. For example, there was no official Roman presence in the Galilee at all, and in Judea the Roman administration and force was very limited, with one Roman of rank supported by what
E.P. Sandersdescribes as "a handful of troops", stationed at the Antonia Fortress, who lived amongst the non-Jews in Caesarea Maritima. The area was not annexed by Rome in the sense that Gaulwas, and was left to rule itself as far as was consistent with the Roman benefit and political needs. The importance of the area was not in Romanization, but in its location, as the route between regions such as Syria and Egypt where Rome primarily sought profit and as a buffer state against the Parthian Empire. Josephus identifies this as a period of increasing rebellion, but a contrasting view is that rebellions broke out at the point where rulers changed, famine or other crisis struck, or new rules (especially those affecting religion) were imposed (see Sanders 1996: 28-29). In part, it was peaceful at other times because of the understanding that certain lines could not be crossed with impunity by either side, without problems arising. Potential rebellion was one such line, so was excessively brutal rule or disruption of religious matters. However, the potential for war existed at every moment, because it might take only one officer or member of the public on either side reacting to some small incident which would cause a spark leading to a fire. Hence both Jewish leaders and Roman leaders, acutely aware of this, had strong motives to use the forces at their command to ensure no such small spark could arise and get out of hand.
The High Priest
Although the office of high priest was theoretically life-long, the Romans considered the high priesthood more of a political office (ie, leader responsible for the conduct of the Jewish people), and regularly deposed the high priests in favour of their own choice of appointees. Due to the manipulations of
Annas, however, the temple remained in control of one family for most of the first century until it was destroyed. Annas was high priest from 6- 15CE. His son-in-law Caiaphaswas high priest from 18- 36. His sons Eleazar ( 16- 17), Jonathas ( 36- 37and 44), Theophilus ben Ananus( 37- 41), Matthias ( 43) and Ananias ( 63) all became high priests. (In this context, the Gospel of Johnreports a separate trial of Jesus before Annas, in addition to the Sanhedrin; if this took place, it was perhaps because many considered him to be the legitimate high priest.)
Religious and Cultural Life During the Roman Period
During the Roman period,
Aramaicand Greek continued to be the most important languages in the region. Prefects like Pontius Pilate(a Roman from Rome and later recalled to Rome) would most likely have spoken Latin(see also INRI), but may have used Koine Greekto handle day to day business in the province, though it is also possible that he used Aramaic for this or made use of translators. Scholars debate whether everyday people or Jesus himself spoke any languages other than Aramaic, perhaps some rudimentary Greek or Latin, and (as Jews) Hebrew.
According to the Torah, Jews were required to travel to Jerusalem and offer sacrifices at the Temple three times a year:
Passover, Sukkot, and Shavuot(the three Pilgrimage Festivals, or "Shalosh Regalim"). Although many Jews attempted to do so, many could not due to the large distances involved. Consequently, Jews developed new institutions to supplement the Temple. Outside of Roman Judea, Jews established "proseuchai" (house of prayer). Within Roman Judea, Jews established "synagogues" (meeting houses). Synagoguesserved primarily as local civic-centers, but people in synagogues and proseuchai developed practices based on and paralleling practices in the Temple. For example, people in the "proseuchai" imitated the Temple practice of reciting the Shematwice daily.
E.P. Sanders comments on the large gatherings caused by the Jewish festivals, in his book "The Historical Figure of Jesus"::"The Roman prefect and additional troops came to Jerusalem during the major festivals to ensure that the huge crowds did not get out of hand. Public assemblies were on the whole carefully watched in the ancient world, and the festivals in Jerusalem were known to be hazardous. During the 150 or so years before Jesus' death, we know of at least four substantial upheavals that began during a festival - this despite the fact that both Jewish and Roman rulers were prepared for trouble and had forces nearby." (Sanders 1996: 23)
Judaism in the Roman period
By the time of the Second Temple, Judaism was also not entirely a religion in the hands of a priestly clique. That is, it was less inclined to be
esotericand more inclined to allow lay people to form their own views and discuss the laws and wishes of God. Child prodigies who at a relatively young age could quote and profoundly debate scripture and Rabbinic views were not infrequent.Fact|date=February 2007 To quote E.P. Sanders again (Sanders 1996: 48), at the time of Jesus::"All Jews, like the Pharisees, believed they should understand the divine law and obey it... from time to time individuals stood up and claimed to be the truest representatives of God. In general terms, this is where Jesus fits. He was an individual [who was] convinced that he knew the will of God."
Factions, groups and cults in the Roman period
According to the Jewish-Roman historian
Flavius Josephus, the three parties in contemporary Judaism were the Pharisees and Sadducees and Essenes, the last of these three being apparently marginalized and in some cases retired to quasi-monastic communities.
adducees and Pharisees in the Roman period
There is a record of only one high priest (Ananus, in
62) being a Sadducee, although scholars generally assume that the Sanhedrin was dominated by Sadducees. The Pharisees, primarily scholars and educators, were politically quiescent, and studied, taught, and worshipped in their own way. Although popular and respected, they had no power.
During this period serious theological differences emerged between the Sadducees and Pharisees. Whereas Sadducees favored a limited interpretation of the
Torah, Pharisees debated new applications of the law and devised ways for all Jews to incorporate purity practices (hitherto limited to the Temple, see also Ministry of Jesus#Ritual cleanliness) in their everyday lives. Unlike the Sadducees, the Pharisees also believed in (and introduced) the concept of the resurrection of the deadin a future, messianic age.
During this time a variety of other religious movements and splinter groups developed. A number of individuals claimed to be new prophets, in the tradition of
Elijahand Elisha. The Talmudprovides two examples of such Jewish miracle workers around the time of Jesus. MishnahTa'anit 3:8 tells of " Honi the Circledrawer" who, in the middle of the first century BCE, was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain. On one occasion when God did not answer his prayer, he drew a circle in the dust, stood inside it, and informed God that he would not move until it rained. When it began to drizzle, Honi told God that he was not satisfied and expected more rain; it then began to pour. MishnahBerakot 5:5 tells of Hanina ben Dosa, who in the generation following Jesus cured Gamaliel's son by prayer (compare with Matthew 8: 5-13). A later story (In the Babylonian Talmud, Berakot 33a) tells of a lizard that used to injure passers-by. Hanina ben Dosa came and put his heel over the hole; the lizard bit him and died.
Such men were respected for their relationship with God but not considered especially saintly; their abilities were seen as one more unknowable thing and not deemed a result of any ultra-strict observance of Jewish law. These men were sometimes doubted, often respected, and even (according to Geza Vermes) addressed by their followers as "lord" — but never considered "saviors" or "messiahs."
Messiahs and Millennial Prophets
Messiah, Moshiach(Jewish concept of the word)"The English word "messiah" is derived from the Hebrew word "mashiyakh" or " moshiach" (he: משיח), meaning "anointed one." But this word has had other meanings, for different groups of people at different times. We cannot immediately assume that when Jews, or indeed Jesus and his followers, used the word, they used it the same way as people do now.
For many Christians today, "messiah" refers to the personal and divine savior of all humankind, an apocalyptic notion of messiah, as one who will usher in the end of history by resurrecting the dead and by executing God's judgement over humankind. This apocalyptic vision has its origins in Jewish culture during the Babylonian Exile and the Second Temple Period. Nevertheless, it existed alongside a nationalist notion of messiah, as one who will defend the Jews against foreign oppressors and rule the Jews justly, and by divine right. This nationalist vision has its origins in the Hebrew Bible, and endures among Jews today.
In the Hebrew Bible, "messiah" was originally used to refer to formally appointed High Priests and kings. The Essenes and the
Mishnah, edited in 200, uses the term mainly to refer to the High Priest. By the time of the Roman occupation, however, many Jews also used the term to refer to a descendant of King Davidwho would restore God's kingdom (see the passage from II Samuel quoted above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Priests_and_Kings] . Thus, although all Jewish kings were anointed, not all kings were considered messianic. The Hasmoneankings ( 162 BCE- 56 BCE) were not descended from David, and did not claim to have established God's Kingdom. After the Roman occupation and the fall of the Hasmoneans, many Jews seeing these as the end of days, hoped that the Romans would somehow fall or be replaced by a Jewish king. They were divided as to how this might occur. Most Jews believed that their history was governed by God, meaning that even the conquest of Judea by the Romans was a divine act. Thus, the majority of Jews accepted Roman ruleFact|date=June 2007, and did not look for, or encourage, messiahs. They believed that the Romans would be replaced by a Jewish king only through divine intervention at a time of God's choosing. The word ' moshiach' came to be used for the one who would achieve these things.
During this period a new class of prophets emerged who hearkened back to
Mosesand Joshuaas harbingers of national liberation. These men did not claim to be messiahs, and did not rely on physical force, but did lead large movements of people (from the hundreds to the thousands) to act in ways that, they believed, would lead God to restore his kingdom. For example, in 36a Samaritan led a large group up Mount Gerizim, where they believed Moses had buried sacred vessels (echoing Moses' ascent up Mt. Sinai). Pilate blocked their route and killed their leaders. Josephus, who elsewhere expressed prejudice against Samaritans, suggested that they were armed. But the surviving Samaritans appealed to the Syrian Legate, Vitellius, that they were unarmed and that Pilate's actions were excessively cruel. As a result, Pilate was sent to Rome and ultimately dismissed from his post as procurator. Another such prophet was Theudas, who, sometime between 44and 46led a large group of people to the Jordan river, which he claimed he could part (echoing Moses at the Red Sea and Joshua at the Jordan river). Fadus, the procurator who succeeded Pilate, blocked their route and killed Theudas. An "Egyptian Prophet" (it is unclear if the prophet came from Egypt, or was invoking Moses' Egyptian origin) led thirty thousand around the mount of Olives and sought to enter Jerusalem until stopped by Felix, the procurator who succeeded Fadus.
icarii, Bandits, and Zealots
Various groups also resisted the status quo by force of arms. In many cases these groups did not have a clearly defined revolutionary program; in some cases they were opposed more to urban elites than to the Romans per se. These groups took on different forms, with different methods in the North than in the South.
In addition, bandits or brigands had been active in the region. Social historians have suggested that bandits are common in peasant societies; often poor men who identify with other peasants, but who seek to acquire wealth and political power. When Herod was still military governor in the Galilee, he spent a good deal of time fighting bandits under the leadership of Ezekias. These bandits are best understood as a peasant group whose targets were local elites (both Hasmonean and Herodian) rather than Rome.
Ventidius Cumanus(procurator 48to 52CE) often retaliated against brigandry by punishing peasant communities he believed to be their base of support. When a Galillean pilgrim on way to Jerusalem was murdered by a Samaritan, the bandit chief Eliezar organized Galilleans for a counter-attack, and Cumanus moved against the Jews. The Syrian legate Quadratus intervened and sent several Jewish and Samaritan officials to Rome. The Emperor Claudiustook the Jewish side, and had the Samaritan leaders executed and exiled, and turned one named Veler over to the Jews who beheaded him. Thus, widespread peasant unrest of this period was not exclusively directed against Rome but also expressed discontent against urban elites and other groups; Roman policy sought to contain the power of the bandits while cultivating Jewish support.
During the Great Revolt in
66, Josephuswas sent to command the Galilee. He raised an army primarily of local bandits who pillaged nearby Greek and Roman cities (including ones occupied by Jewish elites), including the administrative centers of Sepphoris, Tiberias, and Gabara. This suggests that they were concerned primarily with gain or social insurrection against local elites, rather than a political revolution against Roman occupation. When Roman legions arrived from Syria, the bandit army melted away.
The Romans employed a scorched-earth policy in its fight in the north, driving thousands of peasants sourthwards towards Jerusalem. Between
67and 68, these peasants, perhaps led by bandits, formed a new political party called the Zealots, which believed that an independent kingdom should be restored immediately through force of arms. It is unclear whether their leaders made messianic claims. The Zealots imprisoned members of the Herodian family, killed the former high priests Ananus ben Artanus and Joshua ben Gamaliel, and put on trial the wealthiest citizens. It is possible that they believed they were purging elements who whom they believed would have surrendered to the Romans. But these purges also reveal the great social divide between Jewish peasants and aristocrats at this time. They formed part of a social revolution: although they ultimately lost to the Romans, elite groups like the Hasmoneans, Herodians, and Sadducees would never again have power in Roman Judea.
Towards a Historical Jesus
Analysis of the gospels
Most historians view the Gospels not as an objective account of Jesus, but as the product of men writing at a particular period, and grappling with particular theological as well as political issues. Specifically, they assume that after Jesus's death, his sayings, and stories about him, circulated among his followers until, at some point — probably in the last few decades of the first century — someone (or a group of people) wrote down his sayings in Greek (see
Q document), and someone edited and organized stories about his life into a historical narrative, the Gospel of Mark. As these two documents circulated among Christians, other historical narratives were edited and organized. By the fourth century, Christian authorities had chosen four Gospels as authoritative accounts of Jesus's career, and ascribed them to the authorship of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. This period coincided not only with the institutionalization of Christianity but with its break with Rabbinic Judaism — a break that involved both the rejection of Rabbinic teachings, and a turn towards Gentiles for new converts. Moreover, just as Rabbinic Judaism was in part the Pharisaic response to their acknowledgment that the Temple would not be rebuilt in their lifetimes, Christianity reflected the acknowledgment of early Christians that the Second Coming of Christ and the establishment of God's kingdom on earth was not to happen in their lifetimes. The critical analysis of the Gospels involves, at least in part, a consideration of how these concerns affected the Gospels' accounts of Jesus.
According to historian Paula Fredriksen (1988: 5), critical scholars rely on four basic criteria for extrapolating an "authentic" historical account of Jesus out of the New Testament sources:
#dissimilarity: "if the earliest form of a saying or story differs in emphasis from a characteristic teaching or concern both of contemporary Judaism and of the early church, then it "may" be authentic."
#coherence: "if material from the earlier strata of tradition is consonant with other material already established as probably authentic, then it too is probably authentic."
#multiple attestation: if material appears in a number of different sources and literary contexts, then it may be authentic."
#linguistic suitability: "material with a claim to authenticity should be susceptible of Aramaic rendering, since Jesus did not teach in Greek, the language of the documents."As Fredriksen observes, these criteria do not guarantee an accurate historical reconstruction. Nevertheless, she argues, :If something stands in the gospels that is clearly "not" in the interests of the late first-century church — disparaging remarks about Gentiles, for example, or explicit pronouncements about the imminent end of the world — then it has a stronger claim to authenticity than otherwise. Stated briefly, anything embarrassing is probably earlier. (1988: 6).Even these criteria are not sufficient to recover "what really happened." They can, however, enable historians to suggest "with reasonable security what "possibly" happened, what "probably" happened, and what "could not possibly" have happened.
According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: John's baptism, and Pilate's crucifixion, of Jesus. These events are mentioned in all four gospels. Moreover, they do not conform to Jewish tradition, in which there are no baptized and crucified messiahs. They are also embarrassing to the early Church. John the Baptist's prominence in both the gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus's mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus's death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).
Given the historical context in which the Gospels took their final form and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known about first century Judaism. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus seems not to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different – and for most Jews, opposing – positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, and preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea. (According to Geza Vermes, that Jesus' followers addressed him as "lord" indicates that they likened him to notable miracle workers and scribes. see
Names and titles of Jesus)
Both the Gospel accounts and the Pauline interpolation were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. Christians had to refashion their theological and apocalyptic claims given that Jesus was not immediately reincarnated to restore the Jewish kingdom. Moreover, as Christianity emerged as a new religion seeking converts among the gentiles, it needed to assure both Roman authorities and prospective Gentile audiences that it neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty. Historians have argued that these two conditions played a crucial role in the revision of accounts of Jesus' life and teachings into the form they ultimately took in the Gospels.
Historians also often note that as Jesus was Jewish, his life, words, and teachings must be understood in the context of 1st century Judaism, his native culture. Moreover, they highlight first and second century Judaism — especially after the destruction of the Temple — as being in a state of flux, consisting of a variety of sects.
The divergence of early Christians and Rabbinic Jews
As with many religions, no precise date of founding is agreed by all parties. Christians traditionally believe that Christianity began with Jesus' ministry, and the appointment of the
Twelve Apostlesor the Seventy Disciples, see also Great Commission. [From the viewpoint expressed in the Gospels, Christianity could be said to have first emerged with a structure — a Church — when Jesus appointed "seventy" and sent them to the "harvest" (ie, missionary work) in Luke 10.]
Many historians argue that the Gospels took their final form after the Great Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, and need to be understood in this context [Cohen, Shaye J.D. (1988). "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah" ISBN 0-664-25017-3] [Fredriksen, Paula (1988. "From Jesus to Christ" ISBN 0-300-04864-5] [Sanders, E.P. (1987). "Jesus and Judaism", Fortress Press ISBN 0-8006-2061-5] . They view Christians as much as Pharisees as being competing movements "within" Judaism that decisively broke only after the
Bar Kokhba's revolt, when the successors of the Pharisees claimed hegemony over all Judaism, and Christianity emerged as a new religion.
The Great Revolt and the Destruction of the Temple
66CE Jewish discontent with Rome had escalated. At first, the priests tried to suppress rebellion, even calling upon the Pharisees for help. After the Roman garrison failed to stop Hellenists from desecrating a synagogue in Caesarea, however, the high priest suspended payment of tribute, inaugurating the Great Jewish Revolt. In 70the Temple was destroyed. The destruction of the Second Temple was a profoundly traumatic experience for the Jews, who were now confronted with difficult and far-reaching questions:
* How to achieve atonement without the Temple?
* How to explain the disastrous outcome of the rebellion?
* How to live in the post-Temple, Romanized world?
* How to connect present and past traditions?How people answered these questioned depended largely on their position prior to the revolt. But the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans not only put an end to the revolt, it marked the end of an era. Revolutionaries like the Zealots had been crushed by the Romans, and had little credibility (the last Zealots died at
Masadain 73). The Sadducees, whose teachings were so closely connected to the Temple cult, disappeared. The Essenes also vanished, perhaps because their teachings so diverged from the issues of the times (primarily isolationists, the destruction of the Second Temple was of no consequence to them; precisely for this reason, they were of little consequence to the vast majority of Jews).
Two organized groups remained: the
Early Christians, and Pharisees. Some scholars, such as Daniel Boyarin and Paula Fredricksen, suggest that it was at this time, when Christians and Pharisees were competing for leadership of the Jewish people, that accounts of debates between Jesus and the apostles, debates with Pharisees, and anti-Pharisaic passages, were written and incorporated into the New Testament.
The Emergence of Rabbinic Judaism
Of all the major Second Temple sects, only the Pharisees remained (but see
Karaite Judaism). Their vision of Jewish law as a means by which ordinary people could engage with the sacred in their daily lives, provided them with a position from which to respond to all four challenges, in a way meaningful to the vast majority of Jews.
Following the destruction of the Temple, Rome governed Judea through a
Procuratorat Caesarea and a Jewish Patriarch. A former leading Pharisee, Yohanan ben Zakkai, was appointed the first Patriarch (the Hebrew word, Nasi, also means prince, or president), and he reestablished the Sanhedrin at Javneh under Pharisee control. Instead of giving tithes to the priests and sacrificing offerings at the Temple, the rabbis instructed Jews to give money to charities and study in local Synagogues, as well as to pay the Fiscus Iudaicus.
132, the Emperor Hadrianthreatened to rebuild Jerusalem as a pagan city dedicated to Jupiter, called Aelia Capitolina. Some of the leading sages of the Sanhedrin supported a rebellion (and, for a short time, an independent state) led by Simon bar Kozeba (also called Bar Kochba, or "son of a star"); some, such as Rabbi Akiba, believed Bar Kochbah to be "messiah", or king. Up until this time, a number of Christians were still part of the Jewish community. However, they did not support or take part in the revolt. Whether because they had no wish to fight, or because they could not support a second messiah in addition to Jesus, or because of their harsh treatment by Bar Kochba during his brief reign, these Christians also left the Jewish community around this time.
This revolt ended in
135when Bar Kochba and his army were defeated. According to a midrash, in addition to Bar Kochba the Romans tortured and executed ten leading members of the Sanhedrin. This account also claims this was belated repayment for the guilt of the ten brothers who kidnapped Joseph. It is possible that this account represents a Pharisaic response to the Christianaccount of Jesus' crucifixion; in both accounts the Romans brutally punish rebels, who accept their torture as atonement for the crimes of others.
After the suppression of the revolt the vast majority of Jews were sent into exile; shortly thereafter (around 200),
Judah haNasiedited together judgements and traditions into an authoritative code, the Mishna. This marks the transformation of Pharisaic Judaism into Rabbinic Judaism.
Although the Rabbis traced their origins to the Pharisees, Rabbinic Judaism nevertheless involved a radical repudiation of certain elements of Phariseism - elements that were basic to Second Temple Judaism. The Pharisees had been partisan. Members of different sects argued with one another over the correctness of their respective interpretations, see also
Hillel and Shammai. After the destruction of the Second Temple, these sectarian divisions ended. The term "Pharisee" was no longer used, perhaps because it was a term more often used by non-Pharisees, but also because the term was explicitly sectarian. The Rabbis claimed leadership over all Jews, and added to the Amidahthe "birkat haMinim" (see Council of Jamnia), a prayer which in part exclaims, "Praised are You O Lord, who breaks enemies and defeats the arrogant," and which is understood as a rejection of sectarians and sectarianism. This shift by no means resolved conflicts over the interpretation of the Torah; rather, it relocated debates between sects to debates within Rabbinic Judaism.
The Emergence of Christianity
According to prevalent Jewish beliefs, Jesus' failure to establish the Kingdom of God, and his death at the hands of the Romans, invalidated any messianic claims (see for comparison: "
prophet" and " false prophet"). Paula Fredriksen, in "From Jesus to Christ", has suggested that Jesus' impact on his followers was so great that they could not accept this failure. According to the New Testament, some Christians believed that they encountered Jesus after his crucifixion; they argued that he had been resurrected (the belief in the resurrection of the dead in the messianic age was a core Pharisaic doctrine), and would soon return to usher in the Kingdom of Godand fulfill the rest of Messianic prophecysuch as the Resurrection of the deadand the Last Judgment. Others adapted Gnosticismas a way to maintain the vitality and validity of Jesus' teachings (see Elaine Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels"). Since early Christians believed that Jesus had already replaced the Temple as the expression of a new covenant, they were relatively unconcerned with the destruction of the Temple.
In the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, and then the defeat of Bar Kozeba, more Jews were attracted to the Pharisaic rabbis than Christianity — perhaps because, in the aftermath of the revolt, many Jews were afraid that talk of a new king and a new kingdom would provoke Roman wrath, or because most Jews did not feel that the destruction of the Second Temple signified the abrogation of their covenant with God, or because Jesus' central teachings (to love one's neighbor, and to love God with all one's heart, soul, and might) were also fundamental to Jewish teaching and therefore had no special appeal. See also
Rejection of Jesus. When Christians could no longer attract a large number of followers from among other Jews they turned to Gentiles as potential converts, distanced themselves from the politically and spiritually difficult relationship with Judaism and Jews, and emerged as a new religion. This distancing was a long and gradual process. Some Christians were still part of the Jewish community up until the time of the Bar Kochba revolt in the 130s, see also Jewish Christians. As late as the 300s, John Chrysostomstrongly discouraged Christians from attending Jewish festivals in Antioch, which suggests at least some ongoing contact between the two groups in that city. Similarly for the Council of Laodiceaaround 365. See also Shabbat, Sabbath in Christianity, Quartodeciman, Constantine I and Christianity.
According to Daniel Boyarin, in "A Radical Jew,"
Paul of Tarsuscombined the life of Jesus with Greek philosophy to reinterpret the Hebrew Bible in terms of the Platonicopposition between the ideal (which is real) and the material (which is false). Judaism is a corporeal religion, in which membership is based not on belief but rather descent from Abraham, physically marked by circumcision, and focussing on how to live this life properly. Paul saw in the symbol of a resurrected Jesus the possibility of a spiritual rather than corporeal messiah. He used this notion of messiah to argue for a religion through which all people — not just descendants of Abraham — could worship the God of Abraham. Unlike Judaism, which holds that it is the proper religion only of the Jews (the notable exception being the Noahide Laws), Pauline Christianityclaimed to be the proper religion for all people. In other words, by appealing to the Platonicdistinction between the material and the ideal, Paul showed how the spirit of Christ could provide all people a way to worship God — the God who had previsously been worshipped only by Jews, and Jewish Proselytes, although Jews claimed that He was the one and only God of all (see, for example, Romans 8: 1-4; II Corinthians 3:3; Galatians 3: 14; Philippians 3:3). Although Boyarin roots Paul's work in Hellenistic Judaism, he sees this Platonic reworking of both Jesus's teachings and Pharisaic Judaism as essential to the emergence of Christianity as a distinct religion. See also New Covenant.
Jewish Encyclopediaarticle on [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=283&letter=S&search=Saul%20of%20Tarsus Saul of Tarsus] states::"According to Acts, Paul began working along the traditional Jewish line of proselytizing in the various synagogues where the proselytesof the gate [a biblical term, for example see bibleref|Exodus|20:10] and the Jews met; and only because he failed to win the Jews to his views, encountering strong opposition and persecution from them, did he turn to the Gentile world after he had agreed at a convention with the apostles at Jerusalem to admit the Gentiles into the Church only as proselytes of the gate, that is, after their acceptance of the Noachian laws (bibleref|Acts|15:1–31).
The 18th century rabbi,
Jacob Emdenproposed that Jesus, and Paul after him, intended to convert the gentiles to the Noahide laws while allowing the Jews to follow full Mosaic Law. [ [http://jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=142&letter=G#543 Jewish Encyclopedia: Gentile: Gentiles May Not Be Taught the Torah] : "R. Emden (), in a remarkable apology for Christianity contained in his appendix to "Seder 'Olam" (pp. 32b–34b, Hamburg, 1752), gives it as his opinion that the original intention of Jesus, and especially of Paul, was to convert only the Gentiles to the seven moral laws of Noah and to let the Jews follow the Mosaic law—which explains the apparent contradictions in the New Testament regarding the laws of Moses and the Sabbath."]
Romanitas, Culture of Rome
History of ancient Israel and Judah
Social life in Babylonia and Assyria
Christianity and Judaism
Jesus in the Christian Bible
Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews" 93CE
Tanakh("the redacted collection of Jewish religious writings from the period")
New Testament("the half of the Christian Bible that provides an account of Jesus's life and teachings, and the orthodox history of the early Christian Church")
Talmud("the main compendium of Rabbinal debates, legends, and laws")
*Akers, Keith (2000). "The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity" (New York: Lantern Books). (Foreword by
*Boyarin, Daniel (1997). "A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity" ISBN 0-520-21214-2
*Catchpole, D. R. (1971). "The Trial of Jesus: a study in the gospels and Jewish historiographyfrom 1770 to the present day" Leiden: Brill
*Cohen, Shaye J.D. (1988). "From the Maccabees to the Mishnah" ISBN 0-664-25017-3
*Cohen, Shaye J.D. (2001). "The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties" ISBN 0-520-22693-3
*Crossan, John Dominic (1991). "The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant", ISBN 0-06-061629-6
*Ehrman, Bart (2003). "The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings", ISBN 0-19-515462-2
*Fredriksen, Paula "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews: A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity" ISBN 0-679-76746-0
*Fredriksen, Paula (1988. "From Jesus to Christ" ISBN 0-300-04864-5
*Bruce J. Malina: "Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea." Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville (Kentucky) 1993
*Bruce J. Malina: "The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology". 3rd edition, Westminster John Knox Press Louisville (Kentucky) 2001
*Bruce J. Malina: "Social Science Commentary on the Gospel of John" Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 1998
*Bruce J. Malina: "Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels" Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 2003
*Meier, John P., "",:(1991), v.1, "The Roots of the Problem and the Person" ISBN 0-385-26425-9 :(1994). v.2, "Mentor, Message, and Miracles" ISBN 0-385-46992-6 :(2001). v.3, "Companions and Competitors" ISBN 0-385-46993-4
*Neusner, Jacob "Torah From our Sages: Pirke Avot" ISBN 0-940646-05-6
*Orlinsky, H. M. ( 1971). "The Seer-Priest" in W.H. Allen "The World History of the Jewish People, Vol.3: Judges" pp.269-279.
*Pagels, Elaine "The Gnostic Gospels" 1989 ISBN 0-679-72453-2
*Sanders, E.P. (1996). "The Historical Figure of Jesus", Penguin ISBN 0-14-014499-4
*Sanders, E.P. (1987). "Jesus and Judaism", Fortress Press ISBN 0-8006-2061-5
*Schwartz, Leo, ed. "Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People" ISBN 0-394-60413-X
*Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann: "The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century." Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 1999, new ed. (paperback) 2001
*Wolfgang Stegemann The Gospel and the Poor. Fortress Press. Minneapolis 1984 (ISBN-10: 0800617835 - ISBN-13: 978-0800617837)
*Vermes, Geza "Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Reading of the Gospels" ISBN 0-8006-1443-7
*Vermes, Geza, "The Religion of Jesus the Jew" ISBN 0-8006-2797-0
*Vermes, Geza, "Jesus in his Jewish context" ISBN 0-8006-3623-6
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.