Chapter One

The World of the New Testament

The Roman Empire

Our study begins with the world of the New Testament, and so let me offer some preliminary definitions. What do I mean by `the world of the New Testament'? The world of the New Testament is the world of a) the Roman Empire; b) Greek language and civilization, or `Hellenism'; and c) Jewish religion and culture. What do I mean by `Hellenism'? The term `Hellenism' comes from the Greek word hellenismos which means `imitation of the Greeks'. Hellenism, in the words of Norman Perrin, refers to `the culture that developed in the world conquered by Alexander the Great [in the first part of the fourth century bce] as that world adopted the Greek language and imitated Greek ways'. The Hellenistic period may be said to have extended, then, from c.323 bce [i.e. after the death of Alexander] to the end (for our purposes) of the New Testament period (c.150 ce). As one of its two parents, Hellenism was the surrounding and nurturing ethos for early Christianity and the New Testament writings.

With these preliminary definitions in mind, let us look in turn at each of the three political and cultural backgrounds which make up `the world of the New Testament', beginning with the Roman Empire. At the height of its power, the Roman Empire encompassed an area that stretched from Britain southwards as far as Morocco, then eastwards as far as Arabia, then north to Turkey and Romania and finally westwards along the Danube to the Rhine. From its legendary founding by Romulus and Remus in 753 bce, the little city-state of Rome had slowly risen to occupy this dominating influence in the Mediterranean world, particularly after North Africa was brought into its orbit with the defeat of the Carthaginians. By a series of military victories or astute alliances, Greece, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Crete, Cyprus and Asia Minor were gradually brought under its sway. Syria and its neighbouring principality, Judaea, fell to Pompey in 64/63 bce, Europe fell to Caesar in the Gallic Wars, Egypt to Octavian after the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium (31 bce), and Britain (at least its `softer' parts) to Claudius in 43 ce.

In the days of the Republic, power lay in the hands of an oligarchy (`rule by the few'), a situation threatened by the imperial pretensions of Julius Caesar. These pretensions were `nipped in the bud' with his assassination in 44 bce at the hands of the republican conspirators, Brutus, Cassius et al. Brutus and Cassius were in turn defeated by Antony and Octavian who divided the Empire between them, Octavian ruling the western part (with its capital at Rome) and Antony and Queen Cleopatra the eastern part (with its capital at Alexandria). With the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of Actium, and their consequent suicide, mastery of the whole Roman world passed to Octavian.

By 27 bce, Octavian had subdued the Empire, and had established peace. He had handed the Empire back to the Senate and people of Rome, and was in turn pronounced princeps, chief citizen of the Republic. Addressed as Augustus (`the exalted one', a title hitherto reserved for gods), he inaugurated a new period of peace and prosperity, the `pax Augusta', with a new form of government in which he, despite appearances, held all the reins of power. The Empire he had inherited as virtually sole ruler was destined to control the Mediterranean world from c.30 bce to the end of the fifth century ce. Within its confines, Christianity rose (cf. Lk. 2:1) and spread, until by the first part of the fourth century it came, under Constantine, to be recognized as the state religion.

The Roman emperors of the New Testament period should be noted, and can be briefly summarized. After the death of Augustus in 14 ce, Augustus' adopted son, Tiberius, took over (at the age of fifty-six) and reigned until 37 ce. It was under his reign that Pontius Pilate was installed as procurator (26 ce). Tiberius was, in general, conscientious and efficient but he became neurotic about the loyalty of his subjects, and his final years were marred by a number of political trials (`treason trials'). The Prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Sejanus, one of the few he could trust, exerted great power and influence with Tiberius, and is considered to be the promoter of a number of the anti-Jewish policies associated with his reign. Pontius Pilate is reckoned by some scholars to have been Sejanus' prote ge and his treatment of the Jews (as reported by Josephus, the Jewish historian) may have had the backing of Sejanus. Sejanus himself fell in 31 ce, a fact that some have considered significant in light of Pontius Pilate's vacillation over the trial of Jesus. He might have felt insecure, in the Emperor's eyes, it is conjectured, after the fall of his mentor (cf. `If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend', Jn 19:12).

Gaius Caligula, the son of Germanicus, Tiberius' adopted son and nephew, succeeded Tiberius in 37 ce. Caligula was only twenty-five years old at the start of what was to prove a very brief reign (37--41 ce). A capricious despot, he courted divine honours, and, among other things, attempted to place a statue of himself in the Jerusalem Temple, a plan only thwarted by his untimely death. Some have seen a veiled reference to this sacrilegious act in Mark chapter 13, verse 14. Caligula's uncle, Claudius, the conqueror of Britain (43 ce), took over from him (41--54 ce), and his imperial power impinges upon the New Testament when, according to the Roman historian, Suetonius, he expelled Jews from Rome (c.50 ce) `at the instigation of one Chrestus' (could this be `Christus'?; cf. Acts 18:1).

The most famous emperor of the New Testament period, of course, was Nero, the great nephew, stepson and adopted son of Claudius. He it was who initiated the first major officially sanctioned Roman persecution against the Christians (Tacitus, Annals, XV.44). Reference will be made to this later. Nero's relatively lengthy reign (54--68 ce) ended in civil war (68--69 ce), with no less than four contenders (Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian) battling for supremacy, and the right to occupy the imperial throne, when Nero died. That battle was won by Vespasian, thereby creating a Flavian dynasty which replaced the Julii and Claudii families of the previous emperors. Vespasian (69--79 ce) established a stable administration, renewed the principate initiated by Augustus and, where the New Testament is concerned, superintended the overthrow of the Jewish state, after the disastrous Romano--Jewish War of 66--73 ce.

Vespasian was succeeded by his two sons, Titus (79--81 ce) and Domitian (81--96 ce), the former's exploits in taking Jerusalem and presiding over the destruction of its Temple being recounted by Josephus. His brother, Domitian, had a more effective and enduring reign, although he faced numerous frontier problems along the Danube and the Rhine as well as with the Parthians in the east. Sadistic and given to megalomania, his rule became increasingly oppressive as he, too, like Nero, courted divine honours. The Revelation of John is seen by many as a response to the persecution inflicted on Christians in his reign. Both brothers may in fact be alluded to in the enigmatic description of the Beast with seven heads in Revelation chapter 17, verses 9--11, the seventh head being Titus (`when he comes he must remain only a little while', 17:10) and the `beast that was and is not', Nero redivivus in the form of Domitian (`it is an eighth but it belongs to the seven and it goes to perdition', 17:11).

Nerva (96--98 ce), an old man adopted by the Senate to replace Domitian, was the first in a line of enlightened emperors, who sought to rule in correspondence with the ideas of Greek philosophy (cf. e.g. Marcus Aurelius, 161--180 ce). He was succeeded by Trajan (98-- 117 ce) who restored Roman fortunes in the troublesome frontiers, and whose correspondence with the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger (111-- 113 ce), which I shall refer to later, reflects a Roman's view of a nascent Christianity suffering persecution in Asia Minor. The two last emperors of the New Testament period, Hadrian (117--138 ce) and Antoninus Pius (138--161 ce), are known to history as the `wall-builders' of Britain, although, as far as the Jews were concerned (as we shall see in the next section), Hadrian was also a great destroyer of walls, the walls of Jerusalem, to be precise, in the disastrous Second Revolt (132--135 ce).

The social structure of Roman society was essentially a pyramid with Senate members and their families at the top, knights or equestrians beneath them, and the majority of Roman citizens or plebeians at the bottom. In addition, there were freedmen (ex-slaves who were normally non-citizens). At the base of the pyramid were the slaves, and at its pinnacle, over all, as princeps, was the chief citizen, the Emperor. The political structure of the Roman Empire was related to this and consisted of the Emperor at the head, with his council, the heads of government departments (procurators), the administrators of Rome and the provinces (prefects and proconsuls) and various other officials. There were two types of province: the public (or senatorial) province and the imperial province. Public provinces were governed by the Senate through proconsuls. Imperial provinces were ones that were usually militarily insecure and in which, therefore, the greater part of the army was stationed. In the first century ce between twenty-five and twenty-eight legions were under arms (at full complement a legion's strength was six thousand men and officers, plus an equal number of auxiliary troops). Imperial provinces, as the name implies, were ruled by the Emperor himself through his governors. These imperial provinces (and their governors) were variously named depending on the extent or nature of the troops stationed there (some provinces had one or more legions, others a single legion, others auxiliary troops alone). It was mainly to administer these provinces that Augustus established the equestrian class. Although directly responsible for the imperial provinces, the Emperor was also given power to intervene in public provinces. For parts of the Empire not thought ready or suitable for direct administration, the Romans governed via `client kingdoms' ruled by friendly local potentates (Herod the Great, for example, was one of these).

Another mainstay of the Empire was Roman law, which was highly developed. Well in advance of Christianity's influence, and in part as a result of Stoic philosophy (which we shall shortly turn to), the Roman legal system had introduced improvements in the status of women and the welfare of slaves. Punishment for public crimes, however, was severe, and consisted of crucifixion, beheading, burning alive, drowning and exposure to wild beasts. It was the right of any Roman citizen who was charged on a criminal matter to appeal directly to Caesar. The apostle Paul is described as doing this in Acts chapter 22 and 25ff. Roman citizenship was a coveted possession, and deemed a great privilege in the ancient world. It was often secured by the path of military service in the auxiliary forces.

Reference has already been made to the pax Augusta, or the pax romana, as it is often called. Under Roman rule, the material quality of life had improved for the Empire's peoples. A flourishing trade existed throughout the Empire, its citizens accustomed to a wide variety of goods and products, whether wheat and papyrus from Egypt, marble from Greece, or perfume, spices, gems, ivory, pearls, silk and slaves from India and the Orient. Communications were good, as the second century bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, testified: `[T]hrough their instrumentality the world is at peace, and we walk on the highways without fear, and sail where we will' (Adv. Haer. iv.30.3). Road-making was the genius of the Romans, although brigands or highwaymen still constituted a problem for some travellers, as the parable of the good Samaritan indicates (Lk. 10:30--37). Though suspended during the winter months on account of storms, sailing was another important means of transport, and a major achievement of the Empire in the first century was to clear the sea of pirates.

To pay for the benefits of the pax romana, the Empire's peoples were subject to taxation. Various taxes were imposed, including the tributum, a direct tax (on land or personal property), which was levied on all who lived outside Italy (cf. Mk 12:13--17). The rights to collect these taxes were often sold to `publicans' (publicani) who formed companies with shareholders in Rome and elsewhere. Although control of these companies was vested in procurators, abuses were common. To determine the tax base for the tributum and other taxes, local censuses were taken. After the deposition of Archelaus in 6 ce, for example, when Judaea reverted to direct Roman rule, Quirinius, the Roman commander in Syria, ordered a general census to be taken in Syria and Palestine (cf. Josephus, Ant. XVII.355; XVIII.1--10, 26). It may be a confusion with this particular census, which caused much protest, that lies behind the datum of Luke chapter 2, verse 1 that in the period of Quirinius' governorship, a general `decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be enrolled'. Nothing, in fact, is known of a census at this time that was Empire-wide, and logically as well as logistically the idea is nonsensical.

The Empire also had a uniform system of coinage which served in addition the propaganda purposes of the Roman emperors. From 44 bce onwards, when the Senate first authorized coins to bear the likeness of the ruler, the practice was adopted by successive emperors. Performing a role similar to today's postage stamps, these often had political, religious or military symbols on the obverse side (cf. Mk 12:13--17).

Although welcomed by the majority of European, Mediterranean and Middle Eastern peoples, the pax romana was not viewed with entirely unmixed feelings by the Empire's subjects. For one thing, it was never completely unified, since there were a number of rebellions throughout the Empire at various times, and numerous mutinies on the part of troops. Rome's response to these was often brutal and merciless. In Calgacus' famous words in respect of the Caledonian campaign: `To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire. They make a desolation and they call it peace' (Tacitus, Agric., XXX). Rome was not always true to her image as a tolerant power and some of the peoples or communities of the Empire feared and hated her oppressive rule, a good example being the Jewish--Christian community of Asia Minor from which the Revelation of John emerged.

The Hellenistic Background

Having said something about the first of the three political and cultural backgrounds which make up `the World of the New Testament', the Roman Empire, let me now turn to the second, the background supplied by Greek language and civilization, or `Hellenism'. Here, I wish to concentrate on the cultural, social, philosophical and religious features of the Hellenistic world that have relevance for the New Testament. In speaking, moreover, of the Hellenistic background to the New Testament, I shall be making, by necessity, a number of general, and perhaps overly sweeping observations.

The catalyst for Hellenism, Alexander the Great, died in 323 bce, but the vast Empire created by him did not survive his death. Politically, it disintegrated, with Hellenistic kings taking over Syria (the Seleucid dynasty) and Egypt (the Ptolemaic dynasty). Culturally, however, it survived and throughout the Mediterranean world Greek ways were being taken over and imitated. Greek culture was aped, appropriated, coveted by all, and the Romans were no exception. When they took power in the Mediterranean world, they took over Greek architecture, Greek education, Greek science, even the Greek `gods' whom they identified with their own. The world was divided into Greeks and `barbarians' (so-called, pejoratively, from the `bar-bar' or indistinct noise or language deemed to be spoken by non-Greeks).

The Greek language became the lingua franca of the Roman Empire, its official language. Latin was used in the western provinces, however, and nothing was done to suppress the use of native languages (cf. Acts 14:11; 21:37). The Greek adopted was not classical Greek but koine (`common' or `mixed'), and it is in this language that the religious texts of the New Testament are written. One testimony to the widespread use of Greek is the fact that when Paul, a Jew, wrote to the Romans, he wrote to them in Greek, and not Latin!

The Hellenistic age produced a panoply of distinguished poets and historians (some of whom have been previously mentioned): Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Livy, Nicholas of Damascus, Strabo, Seneca, Musonius Rufus, Pliny the Elder, Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Martial, Juvenal, Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch, Epictetus, etc. It is worth pointing out, moreover, in relation to this literature, that the New Testament, while Jewish in origin, nevertheless has its rightful place within the extensive realm of Greek literature, in its Hellenistic phase.

Greek science too was taken over by the Romans, but its progress was often retarded by the influence of the theological and philosophical systems and ideologies that dominated the ancient world. We shall consider these in a moment, but first let me say something about the social background. The climate of the earlier part of the Hellenistic Age was rationalistic and sceptical. Man was the `measure of all things', and the old `gods' were seen as projections on a cosmic screen of human values (or the lack of them -- the old `gods' were often an immoral or disreputable lot!). Thereafter, in Gilbert Murray's famous and much repeated phrase, there was something of a `failure of nerve' (i.e. before Rome established its Empire c.30 bce and created order). Upheaval, unrest, uncertainty, a search for security in a changing world, confusion, turmoil -- all these have been taken to characterize the latter part of the age. By the time of the birth of the New Testament, the tide of rationalism and scepticism had turned. The educated minority were taking refuge in philosophy, the lower classes in astrology, magic and superstition. There was a return to religion and to the `new' gods sweeping in from the East. The New Testament era, then, was one of religious and cultural pluralism summed up in the apostle Paul's words in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, verse 5: `There are many "gods" and many "lords".'

Commentators often stress the immorality of the Hellenistic period, especially of the first century Roman world, and Hollywood epics like Quo Vadis? or Caligula, with their uncomplimentary representation of Roman emperors, have done much to reinforce the popular image. Neither abortion or the abandonment of infants was forbidden, and homosexuality (over which our own society is so divided) was sanctioned, and openly practised. Slavery was an accepted part of the system. Sexual promiscuity was widespread, especially on the part of emancipated Roman women. On the other hand, the kind of statistics on which we might base judgements on sexual practice, family matters, divorce rates, etc. are scanty for the ancient world. We often have to rely on the works of the Roman satirists (Musonius Rufus, Seneca, etc.) who frequently described extreme cases. Some of these moralists, moreover, were confirmed misogynists!

One response to the rootlessness of the age, the social disorientation or malaise, expressed itself in the number of voluntary groups that existed where people shared the same function, trade, profession or religion. Among them were associations termed collegia. The members of these collegia met to protect their common interests (e.g. the professional collegia), to worship the same deity (the religious collegia) or, in the case of the poor, to provide for welfare facilities and burial rights, as well as for fellowship (one might compare, in this respect, the nineteenth century Friendly Societies). Although they were more inclusive socially than most Graeco-Roman collegia, from a sociological point of view, early church communities reveal a number of characteristics which resemble these distinctive Hellenistic associations.

If we turn to the philosophical background, then five philosophical schools dominated the age: neo-Platonism, Pythagoreanism, the Epicureans, the Cynics and the Stoics, the last three being particularly pre-eminent. The philosophy of Plato, the teacher of Alexander the Great, was influential at the beginning of the Hellenistic age, but had lost ground by the first century bce. Plato's thought had been rehabilitated, however, under the influence of Plotinus, and the influence of Platonic ways of thinking is to be seen in writers like the Alexandrian Jew, Philo, or in the New Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Platonism distinguished two worlds: the first, the ideal world of perfect forms or ideas; the second, the shadowy world of earthly existence, which is no more than a pale reflection of this upper, purer, more spiritual world. This `two world' dualistic notion permeates the philosophical and religious thinking of the age.

The teaching of the sixth-century philosopher, Pythagoras, mathematician, miracle-worker and sophist -- also experienced a revival from the first century bce onwards. One of its main protagonists in the late Hellenistic period was Apollonius of Tyana, an itinerant philosopher--magician, who practised asceticism, urged people to honour the gods and care for their temples, and, like Jesus, was accredited with numerous healing and nature miracles, including exorcisms and even a return from the dead.

The founder of Epicureanism was Epicurus. For him, the supreme goal in life was `pleasure' by which he meant `the absence of pain'. Epicurus advocated the virtue of ataraxia, i.e. impassiveness. He advocated the quiet life, withdrawal from the public, the cultivation of serenity. The community, he asserted, had no rights or claims over the individual, nor had the gods (who were to be treated with indifference rather than fear). Each person had to preserve his or her own peace of mind if fulfilment was to be achieved. Epicureanism was governed by Democritus' philosophy of `atomism', i.e. the theory that everything is a `fortuitous concourse of atoms'. The soul dissolves at death, and hence there is no afterlife for a man or woman to dread. What mattered in the end was this life.

If the `pleasure' principle motivated the Epicureans, then the same cannot be said for the Cynics. Cynics stressed the worthlessness of all conventional standards. Virtue, they maintained, consisted in one's capacity to reduce one's needs to a minimum. The most famous Cynic was Diogenes who is said to have lived in a barrel! Like the Stoics, Cynics were itinerant `street' preachers. They issued moralistic attacks on society which had a set form, the `diatribe'. This form is reflected in the New Testament writings (e.g. in the Pauline Epistles or the Letter of James). Links between early Christians and Cynics have recently been maintained, some scholars arguing that first-century marketplace audiences would have found little to distinguish between the message brought by Cynic preachers and that proclaimed by Christian missionaries. Some (e.g. F. G. Downing) have even claimed that Jesus was a Jewish Cynic, the often acerbic social teaching found in the Gospels bearing striking similarities to that promulgated by this philosophical school.

Milder in this respect were the Stoics, a movement founded by Zeno of Citium (c.336--263 bce). Other famous Stoics were Cleanthes, Chrysippus and Posidonius. Stoicism underwent many transformations and had a capacity to mix its philosophy with much mythology or superstition, a fact that accounted, some say, for its popularity. Stoicism saw the world as a unity or as a body whose soul, spirit, ordering principle, creative mind, intelligence -- call it what you like -- was God, the Logos (a supreme being also identified with Zeus). The divine Logos had many manifestations and could split into many creative spiritual forces. Man (the ancient world was not as gender-sensitive as we are today!), by virtue of his reason, participated in the divine Logos. Man can rise above his circumstances, the Stoics maintained, and be fulfilled, if he lives his life according to `reason'/logos, and this was interpreted as living according to nature, which reflected the divine Logos. All human life, especially as organized into society, should be governed by these laws of nature that reflect in turn the divine Intelligence. By virtue of logos, or indwelling `reason', all men were equal, an emphasis which proved attractive to the citizens of the Hellenistic world, given their predilection for cosmopolitanism. A high moral tone (if somewhat austere) was also adopted by the Stoics, and correspondences between their teaching and that of the New Testament writers have been detected in a number of passages (cf. e.g. Acts 17:28; Rom. 1:19--23, 11:36, 13:1-- 7; 1 Cor. 7:17--24, 8:6; Col. 3:18--4:1; Eph. 4:6; Jas 3:1--5).

If philosophy was the refuge of the upper and middle classes, then religion dominated the lower classes. Greek religion, the official religion of ancient Greece, was civil and corporate, communal not personal. Worship was demanded of the old gods (the gods of Homer and the Greek tragedians), the gods of Olympus, at stated times and on formal occasions at which set rites or ceremonies were performed. The purpose of these rites was to secure the favour of the gods on the community and the Empire. Not to participate was seen as an anti-social, even anti-patriotic act. Worship of these old gods declined, however, in the Hellenistic period, and for three main reasons: first, many were purely local deities associated with a particular locale (e.g. Artemis or Diana at Ephesus; Athena at Athens); second, attacks on their morals had been launched by Greek writers (e.g. Plato, Euripides, Xenophanes, Euhemerus) and, third, the mythology surrounding them was no longer meaningful and was often found unadaptable to new circumstances, especially by the middle classes.

One prominent form of civil religion in the ancient world did flourish, however, namely, the imperial cult. The cult promoted the practice of worshipping the Emperor as a deity. Although adopted reluctantly in the west, it was common practice in the eastern provinces. In Italy and in Rome, sacrifice was made to the `genius' of the Emperor, and not to the Emperor himself -- Rome was uncomfortable with living `gods' in its midst. In the west, emperors were usually only deified after their death. In the provinces, however, sacrifice was `to Rome and Augustus'. Taken over from the worship accorded to Hellenistic kings, especially in Asia Minor, the cult was found convenient, for political reasons, by Roman emperors. Organized, with priests, it was carefully controlled by them. It was only Jews and Christians who did not participate in the cult, special concessions having been granted to the former. Christians, however (when they came to be identified separately as such), excited charges ranging from lack of patriotism to atheism because of their non-participation, and drew official suspicion or even persecution or native pogroms as a result. A highly colourful and strongly condemnatory response to the cult can be seen in the last book of the New Testament, the Apocalypse or Revelation of John.

The Hellenistic age saw the influx of many new gods and cults, e.g. those dedicated to Asclepius, or to Dionysus. Asclepius was the god of healing, and the temples built to him were the hospitals of the ancient world. The cult of Dionysus (or Bacchus, as he was known to the Romans) emanated from the region of Thrace and/or Phrygia and was an orgiastic, life-confirming cult, with an emphasis on drama and ecstasy. Dionysus (like Jesus in the Fourth Gospel) was the god who could turn water into wine. Although not widely popular, Orphism, with its stress on sin and guilt, and on salvation through purification and holy living, also drew a number of adherents.

A key phenomenon of the Hellenistic age was what scholars have called syncretism. Syncretism means the identification of one god or goddess with another, and is hence marked by the fusing of names and attributes. The tendency, as a result, was towards monotheism, the one `supreme God' or deity. A remarkable example of this occurs in Apuleius' Metamorphoses (or The Golden Ass) where Isis announces herself to the hero Lucius with the words:

I am she that is the natural mother of all things, mistress and governess of all the elements, the initial progeny of worlds . . . manifested alone and under one form of all the gods and goddesses. . . . [M]y name, my divinity is adored throughout all the world in divers manners, in variable customs, and by many names. For the Phrygians . . . call me the Mother of the gods at Pessinus; the Athenians . . . Cecropian Minerva; the Cyprians . . . Paphian Venus; the Cretans . . . Dictynnian Diana; the Sicilians . . . Proserpine; the Eleusians . . . Ceres; some Juno . . . Bellona . . . Hecate . . . Rhamnusia . . . and the Egyptians . . . call me by my true name, Queen Isis (XI. 5).

The Hellenistic age saw in particular the influx of a number of esoteric cults or `mystery religions' from the Orient, cults that worshipped `dying and rising gods', saviour-figures, union with whom brought salvation from fate or death. The precursors of such rites were those celebrated in connection with Demeter at Eleusis. There were three main cults in particular: the cult of Isis and Osiris from Egypt; the cult of Cybele, the Great Mother Goddess from Asia Minor; and the cult of Mithras from Persia. Though a certain amount of mystery still surrounds them, these cults had certain general characteristics. They tended to offer highly emotional, dramatic rites in which the initiate was led to experience mystical union with the god and hence rebirth to new life. They practised baptism or ritual lustration, and shared sacred meals. They also had some special characteristics. The cults of Isis and the Great Mother were public cults, with itinerant, mendicant priests. The cult of Isis and Osiris, which was often spread by sailors, had its `madonna and child', the mother goddess being depicted in figurines with the infant Horus on her knee. Mithraism, a rival to Christianity from the second century onwards, was a private cult, popular with soldiers, and celebrated in an (often underground) temple or mithraeum. The bull was a symbol of Mithras, and the god's birthday was celebrated on 25 December, the winter solstice. Where the Christian believers of the Revelation of John had their robes washed in the blood in the lamb (Rev. 7:14), the initiate to Mithraism (in the ritual of the taurobolium) was washed in the blood of a bull.

The Hellenistic age was a credulous one. Magic and superstition were rife. The popularity of magical practice is evidenced in many quarters: in the classical writers, in extant magical papyri, in the New Testament itself, in the writings of the later church fathers. Stories and legends circulated about the exploits of numerous wonder-workers and magicians, both Hellenistic and Jewish: Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana, Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa, Jesus of Nazareth. Augury (the examination of entrails) was practised. Many illnesses or diseases were viewed as the product of demon-possession, and tales of exorcism were popular in the period. Even certain of the Roman emperors were credited with miracle-working powers.

Fatalism was widespread in the Hellenistic age, the belief that the world was unresponsive to human effort or merit. Everything changed in response to blind `Chance' or inexorable `Fate'. People's fortunes were, like everything else, in a constant state of flux. In consequence, the desire to find some ground of certainty was a dominant motivation behind popular response to the new religious movements and cults. Astralism too was popular, the belief that humankind's fate lay in the stars, human destiny being governed by the heavenly bodies, or rather the gods or powers that presided over them (and which were usually seen as malignant). Astrologers wielded great influence over the emperors.

One phenomenon of the Hellenistic age that placed great emphasis on the gods or powers presiding over the heavenly spheres surrounding the earth was Gnosticism. Gnosticism was once seen as a second century ce Hellenistic formation, a Christian heresy resulting from the radical Hellenization of Christianity (A. Harnack), a product of the influence of Greek thought on the Jewish-Christian tradition. Gnostic ideas, however, are now believed to have been circulating in the first century ce world, and perhaps even before. For Gnostics, the world was seen as evil and under the power of an evil god or Satan. God himself was a transcendent being, living in a realm beyond the spheres. Certain individuals (the elect) have in them a `divine spark'. Between God and the evil world, and proceeding from him are a series of emanations or aeons. According to one myth, one of these, the Gnostic Redeemer, descends to earth to call the elect to a heavenly ascent to their true home by revealing to them the `knowledge' (gnosis) by which the journey is made possible (hence the name `Gnostic'). Such ideas may have been influential in the formation of Christian belief. The Fourth Gospel, for example, was deemed by R. Bultmann to be the religious product of a Gnostic Redeemer myth, although this view is not taken as seriously by contemporary scholarship as it once was.

What was Rome's attitude to these new religious movements? They called them superstitiones, and the cult of Christianity, of course, was numbered among them. Tolerant in so many other respects, the Romans displayed contempt for the east and for these exotic cults. They challenged, after all, formal Roman religion and its traditional values. They undermined family life, devotion to the old gods, the household gods, the Lares and the Penates (the gods of hearth and home). They undermined loyalty to Rome, the Empire and the Emperor. They encouraged, it was believed, various forms of immorality (e.g. sexual promiscuity, ritual murder, infanticide, incest, cannibalism). A number, as a result, were suppressed at various times: the cult of Dionysus (the Bacchanalia), the Druids, the Isis cult. Persecution for the Christians emerged only, however, when this new religious movement began to be seen as distinct from its mother-religion of Judaism. Before this, being considered a Jewish movement, with a Jewish background, it enjoyed, in Roman eyes, the privileges of a permitted religion, a religio licita.

The Jewish Background

In sketching out the third of our three backgrounds to early Christianity and the New Testament world, namely, the Jewish background, let me first give a brief summary of the main historical and political events in relation to the Jewish nation which both preceded and ran concurrently with the origins of the Jesus movement, early Christianity and the emergence of the New Testament writings. In Table 1 I have listed some key political leaders, events, dates and periods, and you might like to refer to this. Some, like the Roman emperors, have been mentioned already.

In the course of their history, the Jews were dominated by successive world empires. They were defeated by the Babylonians in 586 bce, Jerusalem was destroyed and they were carried off into exile, so creating communities of the `dispersion' or diaspora. The Babylonians were in turn succeeded by the Persians (538--332 bce). They proved more benevolent where the Jews were concerned, particularly to those who had returned to their homeland. The empire of Alexander the Great (332--323 bce) followed the Persians but after Alexander's death that empire disintegrated, as previously mentioned. Three main dynasties emerged: that of the Antigonids in Macedonia (who are not important for our purposes), that of the Ptolemies in Egypt (323--198 bce) and that of the Seleucids in Syria (198--142 bce). Rome became the next major Mediterranean power, intervening for the first time in Jewish political affairs in Palestine in the year 63 bce. With the reign of Augustus (27 bce-- 14 ce), the Roman Empire consolidated itself.

Until the Seleucids, Jews had relative autonomy in religious matters. Thereafter they experienced forced Hellenization, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes (175--165 bce). Sacrifice to their God, Yahweh, was prohibited, the eating of pork was enforced (contrary to their food laws) and circumcision (a major identity marker) was banned. An altar to Olympian Zeus was set up in the Jerusalem Temple, an act of such gross sacrilege that this `abomination of desolation' was to inspire the first major apocalyptic writing (the book of Daniel) and to become a nightmarish feature of later Jewish visions of the end of the world. Some factions within Jewry welcomed Hellenism, but others fiercely resisted, in particular a group of pious Jews called the Hasidim. The origin of the later Jewish sects (the Pharisees, Essenes, Sadducees) is dated by many scholars to this time.

In response to these attacks upon their religious practice and identity, the Jews revolted. The revolt was led by a priestly family, the House of Hasmon (who later founded the Hasmonean dynasty), in particular by a priest called Mattathias who had five sons. The eldest, Judas Maccabaeus (`the hammer') conducted guerrilla warfare against the Seleucids, was successful and in 164 bce restored Temple worship. The Jewish Feast or Festival of Hannukah (`Lights') celebrates this event. The Jews, as a result, had a period of relative independence which lasted from 142--63 bce.

Factionalism between two descendants of the Hasmoneans led, however, to Roman intervention, in the shape of Pompey, and Rome gained a foothold in Jewish affairs which it never again lost. This was especially the case when Herod, a half-Jew from Idumaea, succeeded in establishing himself as king of the Jews in 37 bce. Herod the Great was in fact a vassal king, the puppet of one of the Romans' client kingdoms. Herod is known as a brutal tyrant, one associated with the abolition of Jewish civil rights. On the other hand, it should be said, he presided over an era of unprecedented prosperity -- although he bled the population with taxes to achieve it. Herod promoted Hellenistic culture: the building of Greek temples, cities and arenas, and the introduction of Greek games at which participants performed nude, thus offending Jewish sensitivities. He also reconstructed the Temple, although he blotted his copybook by erecting a golden eagle (symbol of Rome) over the doorway. This incident gave rise to a revolt on the part of the Pharisees and the Essenes, an uprising which was nevertheless ruthlessly suppressed.

After his death, Herod's kingdom was divided among his three sons. Philip took the north-eastern part of the kingdom, and reigned as tetrarch between 4 bce and 34 ce. Antipas took Galilee and Peraea, and reigned as tetrarch until 39 ce. Archelaus presided over Judaea, Samaria and Idumaea, but only for ten years, until 6 ce. Archelaus proved as insensitive as his father had been. When satisfaction was demanded by the Jews in respect of the `golden eagle' incident, Archelaus had the demonstrators massacred. It was during this period, Josephus tells us, that a variety of Messianic pretenders arose to challenge him. Archelaus was eventually deposed by the Romans, and Judaea virtually became an imperial province, i.e. (you may recall) one directly ruled by procurators responsible to the Emperor. In Judaea's case, however, it was placed under the aegis of the larger province to the north, Syria. As a result, Quirinius, the governor of Syria, instituted a census for taxation purposes in 6 ce (cf. Lk. 2:1), with Coponius being sent to oversee it. Reference has already been made to this. The census led to another revolt, however, this time at the hands of a Judas of Galilee (or Gamala) in alliance with a certain Sadduk, a priest. According to a popular body of opinion, Judas was the founder of the movement known as the Zealots or Sicarii (`assassins'). The Romans, who kept their troops headquartered in Caesarea (Maritima), and not in Jerusalem (except for a contingent in the Antonia fortress), responded, in their usual brutal and efficient manner, by putting this revolt down.

Under the Emperor Tiberius (14--37 ce), Judaea was governed, as noted above, by the procurator Pontius Pilate (27--37 ce). After Tiberius' death, the despotic Gaius Caligula took over and threatened to disturb Romano-Jewish relations further by erecting a statue to himself as Zeus in the Jerusalem Temple (40 ce). The Jews, however, found an ally in Petronius, the legate of Syria, who temporized, and with Caligula's death in 41 ce, the crisis was averted. For a brief period thereafter, Judaea became a client kingdom again with the appointment of Herod's grandson, Herod Agrippa I (41--44 ce). He it was who persecuted the primitive Christian church, according to Acts chapter 12, verses 1--3 and 21--23. After his early death, the region, nevertheless, reverted to the Romans, although his son Agrippa II was given north-eastern Palestine as well as the right to oversee the Temple (cf. Acts 25:13).

A succession of relatively bad or inept procurators ensued: Cuspius Fadus, Tiberius Alexander, Ventidius Cumanus, Felix (cf. Acts 24), Festus (cf. Acts 24 and 25), Gessius Florus and Albinus. One of the factors leading to this situation was a reversal of Tiberius' erstwhile policy of placing procurators in the province for a reasonable time. The subsequent short-term policy adopted had the effect of encouraging ambitious men to use the province as a stepping-stone to better appointments. Romano-Jewish relations inevitably worsened, leading to the First Jewish Revolt and a disastrous war (66--73 ce). Events came to a head when the Jews refused to offer sacrifices on behalf of the Emperor. The resulting conflict led to the destruction of the city, and the burning of the Temple, a cataclysm graphically described by Josephus in his Jewish War (see note 13).

After the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce, and the demise of the foremost Jewish institution, the Temple, national reconstruction began. The Torah and the synagogue became the rallying point. A new Jewish centre was established at Jamnia (Jabneh). The leadership of the nation passed to prominent rabbis such as Johanan ben Zakkai. The Sanhedrin, the highest Jewish council, was now composed of Pharisees and scribes, the high priestly families who had hitherto held the reigns of power having been killed or having fled during the war. Some of their traditions and influence was preserved at priestly schools set up, in opposition to Jamnia, at Lydda and Sepphoris in Galilee. Although the former Temple tax paid by all Jews was now paid into Roman coffers, the hope of Temple restoration was also kept alive between 70 and 135 ce when the next great Jewish upheaval occurred.

In the time of Hadrian, the Jews received a promise that the Jerusalem Temple would be rebuilt. The failure of this promise led to the (so-called) Second Revolt. This period saw the advent of a man of heroic proportions, Simon bar Kosiba, or Bar Kokhba, as he was nicknamed, the `son of a star' (cf. Num. 24:17; ` a star . . . come forth from Jacob, a sceptre . . . rise out of Israel'). Bar Kokhba was acclaimed by the renowned Rabbi Akiba. The period was one of considerable eschatological (`end-time') fervour. Most Jews enlisted in the cause, with the exception of Jewish Christians who, according to the Church father, Justin Martyr, were persecuted for their allegiance to another Messiah. The war with Rome led to another inevitable defeat. Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and renamed Aelia Capitolina. A temple to Jupiter was erected on the site, and it became a Gentile city. Golgotha (already a Christian site of pilgrimage) was obliterated and replaced by a statue to Aphrodite. The Jews were expelled from their former city, and prohibited from re-entering. Only in the fourth century were they thereafter allowed to do so, and then only on one day a year, the 9 Ab (end of July/beginning of August), by way of commemoration.

As this brief history indicates, relations between the Jews and the Romans were somewhat turbulent. After 70 ce, Jews were definitely personae non gratae in Roman eyes. Relations had in fact been deteriorating from the forties, although earlier they had in general been good. By virtue of rights secured under Julius Caesar and Augustus, Judaism, as already noted, was a recognized religion with a legal status, a religio licita. Among other things, Jews were exempt from military service, and were not required to attend court on a sabbath. Their right to collect the Temple tax from their Diaspora communities and despatch it to Jerusalem had been safeguarded, at least until the fall of the city in 70 ce. They had been excused from participation in the imperial cult, being allowed instead to offer prayers on behalf of the Emperor in their synagogues, and sacrifice on behalf of, but not to, the Emperor in their Temple. Such sacrifices (which ceased, as we have seen, in 66 ce) were even paid for from imperial funds. Roman standards (signa), which were regarded by the Jews as idols, were usually left outside Jerusalem, the one prominent contravention of this (under Pontius Pilate who, under cover of darkness, introduced effigies of the Emperor into the city, BJ II.169--174) leading to a riot which led to their removal. Jews were allowed to be citizens of other cities without losing their Jewish nationality (under Roman law no one could be a citizen of two cities). Christians, too, remained under this umbrella as long as they were considered a Jewish sect, and so in the early days they suffered from their fellow Jews, and not from Rome.

Where political administration in Palestine was concerned, the Roman procurator had limited functions. He did not rule like a king, and so provincial status was welcomed by many Jews. When it came in 6 ce, the change of government had little impact on the masses. Jewish autonomy was preserved, to a certain extent, through the high priest and the Sanhedrin, or Jewish council. Under vassal kings like Herod the Great, the high priesthood had nominal power, but under direct Roman rule, the high priest was the primary political head (even although a number of them were deposed). The high priest was head over the Sanhedrin whose membership included the high priestly families, scribes of the Pharisees and Sadducees who were experts in legal tradition and interpretation (to be discussed shortly) and wealthy upper-class Jewish aristocrats called elders. The Sanhedrin was the supreme legislative, judicial and administrative authority, although it had no right of capital punishment (this was vested in the procurator), and therefore no power to execute offenders except for desecration of the Temple (cf. BJ VI.125; Acts 21:26--30).

In Palestine economic circumstances for the Jewish masses were modest, if not downright poor. Jews were doubly taxed. They were taxed by the civil power, and they were taxed by the religious authorities. Only upper-class Jerusalemites or major landlords in Galilee were wealthy. A substantial Gentile minority lived in Galilee, and many of these landlords were non-Jewish, therefore, and absentee landlords to boot. The major occupations were farming (carried out principally on the northern plains and in the vicinity of Jerusalem), fishing (on the Sea of Galilee), handicrafts and small businesses. Jewish artisans made their living as fullers (laundrymen), weavers, tailors, smiths, carpenters, potters, or, if they were educated in the Law, as scribes. Some occupations were despised, such as tanning (which involved impure contact with dead animals) or tax collection (which involved a different form of impurity, namely, collaboration with the Romans). For peasants, life was hard labour, and the rewards few. A number of tradesmen, artisans and peasants found employment in connection with Herod the Great's numerous building programmes, the construction of the Jerusalem Temple being one, but poverty and unemployment ensued for many when this prodigious edifice was completed in the early sixties. Brigandage was rife, as the parable of the good Samaritan again illustrates (Lk. 10:30--37). Many Jews emigrated to join their Diaspora cousins elsewhere. Of the estimated four and a half to seven million Jews in the first century, only a fraction lived in Palestine. There were major Jewish centres in Cyrene, Alexandria (two of its five districts were Jewish), Rome, Antioch and Ephesus.

The social life of the Palestinian Jew revolved around the family, whose structure was patriarchal. The father was the bread-winner, and he it was who instructed his sons in the Law. The Jewish male was allowed the sole right to divorce, the Mosaic Law (cf. Deut. 24:1) having given him the power to dissolve his marriage with a letter witnessed and signed by two other men only. A marriage sum had to be raised and given to the divorced wife, however, and a fresh sum had to be raised for the next marriage dowry. The grounds for divorce were debated, particularly between the liberal and conservative schools of Hillel and Shammai.

The position of women was an inferior one. Women were banned from the inner Court of the Temple, and had to remain within the Women's Court reserved for them. No active participation, it seems, was allowed in synagogue worship. Their role was only to listen. While they had to observe the prohibitions of the Law, they were not required to keep all of the commandments nor to study the Law (and hence become truly educated). Their status has been well summed up in the famous words of the second-century ce Rabbi Judah who urged three thanksgivings on his fellow Jews:

Blessed be He who did not make me a Gentile.

Blessed be He who did not make me a woman.

Blessed be He who did not make me an uneducated person (Tosephta Berakoth VII.18).

Slaves, it should be said, received better treatment under the Jews than among other communities of the Hellenistic world. Hence many of them became converts to the faith or proselytes. According to the Jewish Law, a slave had to be released by his master in the sabbath year, that is, not more than seven years after captivity. In reality, there were very few slaves in Palestine since not many were rich enough to own them. Jewish slaves of Gentile masters, moreover, were often quickly bought out of slavery, or `redeemed', by other Jews.

Despite this colourful, at times tragic history, and these inauspicious political, economic and social circumstances, the Jews of Palestine and the wider Mediterranean world managed to create and preserve a distinctive cultural and religious heritage. The language of the Palestinian Jew was Aramaic (a form of Hebrew) as well as Greek, that of the Diaspora Jew almost exclusively Greek. In the Diaspora itself, there was widespread use of a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint (LXX). The word means `seventy' and it derives from the tradition that as seventy elders received the Law originally with Moses (cf. Exod. 24:1, 9), so seventy were responsible for its translation. The Letter of Aristeas (late second century bce) offers a different version, claiming that seventy-two were responsible, six from each of the twelve tribes. The translation was probably made in Alexandria by the mid-third century bce, although some would dispute this.

Jewish non-canonical literature of the pre- and post-Christian period can be divided into five main categories. The first of these is what is termed the `Apocrypha'. The Apocrypha are the `hidden, secret, esoteric' books. They comprise some fourteen or fifteen books in all, and are additions to the Septuagint which were rejected from the Hebrew canon by the rabbis at the Council of Jamnia (c.90 ce) but approved for private study or edification. In terms of genre, they comprise books of history, romantic tales, wisdom literature and apocalyptic works. They bear such names as 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Additions to Daniel or Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The second category is the `Pseudepigrapha'. These are the `false writings', i.e. the books published under an assumed name. They were decisively rejected by the rabbis, and are not even in the Septuagint. In terms of genre, they are mostly apocalypses, hence their rejection by the rabbis who were rightly wary of a genre of writing which could be said to have inflamed the situation that had led to the disastrous Romano-Jewish War and subsequent Jewish misfortune. They bear such names as the Psalms of Solomon, The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Jubilees, the Book of Enoch, 2 Enoch or the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Apocalypse of Ezra, the Apocalypse of Baruch.

The third important category is that of the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls are the literature of the Qumran community, a community now widely assumed to be identical to the Essenes, on whom we shall comment shortly. Discovered in the Judaean desert and brought to the attention of scholars in the 1950s, this diverse library of writings, in Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek, presents a number of rules (e.g. the Community Rule which gives an account of the sect's aims and purposes and initiation rites, or the War Rule, which prepares its members for eschatological battle with its enemies), poetic, liturgical and wisdom texts (e.g. hymns of thanksgiving, blessings, curses, exhortations, etc.), biblical interpretation (e.g. commentaries, including pesharim, i.e. expositions of prophecy with a contemporary slant; testaments, i.e. farewell or deathbed speeches which anticipate the future; targums, i.e. vernacular scripture paraphrases, testimonia or catenae, i.e. groups of texts selected to reinforce a particular theme; and midrash, i.e. imaginative or fanciful expositions or interpretations of scripture etc.) and miscellaneous material (e.g. The Copper Scroll, which records hidden treasures!).

A fourth category is the literature of Rabbinic Judaism itself. When we speak of the literature of Rabbinic Judaism, we mean the literature of the Judaism which was normative after 70 ce, a Judaism which was influenced by the Pharisees who were in their ascendancy then. Rabbinic Judaism produced two main bodies of texts in particular, the Mishnah and the Talmud. The Mishnah represented the codification of the oral law which had grown up around the Torah, the first five books of Moses. It contains legal interpretations of that law, otherwise known as halakhah. It was largely compiled by a generation of rabbis called the Tannaim, and completed somewhere around 200 ce. The written Mishnah attracted further commentary (Gemara), and the subsequent combination of the Mishnah with the Gemara produced the Talmud. The Talmud contains legal exposition, argument, rulings, as the Mishnah had done before it (halakhah), but it incorporated in addition material that was edificatory (haggadah). This haggadah consists of parables, prayers, miracle-stories, legends, allegories and meditations. It was compiled by a generation of scholars called the Amoraim between the third century and the end of the fifth century ce. There were two versions of it, the Palestinian Talmud, completed around 350 ce, and the Babylonian Talmud, which was completed around 500 ce.

Our final category of Jewish literature is the literature of Hellenistic Judaism, i.e. the literature of the more liberal Judaism of the Diaspora. This consists, among other things, of the writings of Josephus, and the Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo, both of the same century as Jesus. Flavius Josephus (37/38--post 100 ce) was a Palestinian Jew who, despite being a revolutionary commander in Galilee during the Jewish Revolt, rose to prominence in imperial court circles by virtue of his self-serving support of Vespasian. A stout defender of his Jewish ancestry and heritage, as well as of all things Roman, he produced one of the most valuable records of the period for anyone interested in the Roman Empire in the Judaeo-Christian period. His works include a lengthy account of the Romano-Jewish War in seven books (The Jewish War), an even lengthier account of the history of the Jews in twenty books (The Antiquities of the Jews), as well as some other more minor works (The Life, Against Apion).

Philo (c.30 bce--50 ce) was a native of Alexandria, the premier Hellenistic city of the ancient world, and a member of one of its wealthiest Jewish families. The leader of a delegation to Gaius Caligula to plead for the Emperor not to pursue policies inimical to his Jewish countrymen, Philo was an ardent supporter of both Judaism and Hellenism. Like Josephus, he wrote extensively and with a concern to represent his Jewish heritage in terms of the Greek philosophical tradition to which he was also an heir. His works include philosophical writings, treatises which offer allegorical and homiletical expositions of scripture, or treatments of Old Testament laws, biographies and other historical works. Influenced by the Greek philosophical schools, his prodigious literary output offers Judaism with a Platonic or Stoic slant. Like the author of the Fourth Gospel, he made much of the Stoic concept of the Logos as an intermediate being. His Life of Moses presents Judaism's most famous hero, not only as a gifted law-giver and general but also as a divine man in keeping with Hellenistic conceptions.

Having summarized the various categories of Jewish literature which throw light on the world of the New Testament, let us now turn to the religious background. Although they often overlap, four main types of religious tradition can be detected in ancient Jewish life, literature and experience: the cultic tradition, the prophetic tradition, the apocalyptic tradition and the legal tradition.

The first of these, the cultic tradition, has as its principal institution the Temple. The key operative agent, or functionary, of this institution is the priest (or to a lesser extent, the Levite). The dominant religious emphasis in this tradition is social, ritualistic or liturgical. Stress is laid on the importance of observing the various rites connected with the Temple, including the regular festivals or feasts. Where salvation is concerned, man's access to God is obtained through observance of the sacrifices which ensured national and spiritual well-being for the community. In relation to Jewish religious literature, Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) books such as Leviticus or Deuteronomy reflect this tradition.

The second main tradition in Jewish experience is the prophetic tradition. Here the principal institution is not the Temple but the old or new covenants. Here the key operative agent of the tradition is not the priest but the prophet or mystic. While it may be individual or national, the religious emphasis of this tradition tends to be moral and anti-cultic. Where salvation is concerned, God's contact with humankind comes in the events of history, particularly in a future judgement, or coming day of the Lord. A human being can be God's agent, and a prophet his inspired mouthpiece. The prophetic writings in the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) reflect this tradition (e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Joel, Amos, etc.).

The third main tradition in Jewish experience arises out of the prophetic one, namely the apocalyptic tradition. Here there is no principal institution since the tradition is forward-looking. The key operative agent is the end-time prophet, the apocalyptic visionary, or even the Messiah. The emphasis in this tradition is eschatological, i.e. it looks to the end of the present world and to the coming of the new. God is remote and transcendent, and salvation will come about only by his supernatural intervention in the coming age, at which time a new heaven and a new earth will be created. The dominant tone, then, of apocalyptic is pessimistic, this world being seen as evil and under the domination of Satan, and hence no longer the arena, as for the prophet, of God's redeeming activity. In relation to the Jewish literature which we have reviewed, it is the Pseudepigrapha and a number of writings among the Dead Sea Scrolls which provide a window into this important tradition.

Our final main tradition is the legal one. Here the principal institutions are the Torah, the synagogue and to an extent the sabbath. The key operative agent is the scribe, whose function it is to interpret as well as transmit the law. The dominant emphasis of this tradition is hence a legal one. For the protagonists of this tradition, it is only a faithful observance of the daily prescriptions of the law that will secure salvation. The Mishnah and the Talmuds are the religious texts in which this attitude is to be seen in its most developed form.

With these simple (but not, we hope, simplistic) categories in mind, we turn finally to the four principal sects of Judaism at the time of Jesus: the Sadducees, Zealots, Essenes and Pharisees. All four are mentioned by Josephus, three originating from `ancient times', he claims, the fourth (now widely identified as the Zealots) of more recent origin:

The Jews, from the most ancient times, had three philosophies pertaining to their traditions, that of the Essenes, that of the Sadducees, and, thirdly, that of the group called the Pharisees . . . As for the fourth of the philosophies, Judas the Galilaean set himself up as leader of it. This school agrees in all other respects with the opinions of the Pharisees, except that they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable (Ant. XVIII. 11, 23; cf. also BJ II.119).

The Sadducees are (probably) named from Zadok, chief priest under David and Solomon (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Kgs 2:35), whose descendants claimed the right to rule Israel. Several groups claimed legitimate descent from Zadok in the Maccabean Revolt. One group retired to Qumran. Another retained control in co-operation with the Hasmoneans and became the Sadducees. A patrician party comprising members of the high priestly families, the landed aristocracy and other wealthy individuals, the Sadducees were the most prominent sectarian group before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 ce. Known to us from Josephus, the New Testament and Rabbinic sources, they were the conservative element in Israel. Believing in free will and resisting all forms of determinism, they advocated individual responsibility together with loyalty to the state, the Temple and the Jewish law. They rejected innovations to the Jewish law intended to accommodate it to changing times or circumstances. They rejected doctrinal innovations (if there was no basis for them in the Torah), for example, resurrection of the dead, the apocalyptic intervention of God with supernatural salvation and final judgement, angels and demons. Salvation was achieved through strict adherence to the law. Proper worship was that accorded to God in the Temple. Maintaining co-operative relations with the Empire, and hence seen as collaborators, they were in the end unable to avert the disastrous war with Rome (66-- 73 ce) which resulted not only in the destruction of the Jewish state but also in their own demise. They can be taken as exemplars, therefore, of the cultic (in part legal) religion that we have already outlined.

Our next group, the Zealots, were pitted against the Sadducees. As commonly understood, the Zealots were a first-century religio-political party characterized by its zeal for the one true God, a desire for the autonomy of the land of Israel (aretz Israel), a stubborn refusal to submit to Rome (in the spirit of Maccabean resistance to foreign domination), and a willingness to suffer for its beliefs. The New Testament makes little mention of them, although links with Jesus have been suggested (cf. e.g. his association with Simon `the Zealot', Lk. 6:15; his `cleansing' of the Temple, his death by crucifixion). Jewish history abounds with `zealots', activists who, in their `zeal' for the God of Israel, believed themselves to be his agents for judgement or liberation (cf. e.g. Phinehas, Num. 25:6-- 18, whose chief claim to fame rests upon his having driven a spear through a fellow Israelite and his offending Midianite partner, thereby placating Israel's God and averting a plague). As an identifiable and unified revolutionary movement, however, the nature, history and origins of the `Zealots' are much debated. In consequence of Josephus' ambiguous references to them (as `brigands', `the fourth philosophy', Sicarii or `dagger-men', `Zealots'), some claim that they were a definite sect with a history stretching back to the Maccabees (W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus), others that they originated at the time of the census protest in 6 ce under Judas of Galilee, others still that they did not emerge until 67--68 ce and even then were only one of a number of rebel factions prosecuting the war. Whether Jewish resistance to Rome was indeed engineered by them, or whether it resulted from sporadic, spontaneous and unconnected popular outbursts of anti-Roman feeling is a matter of controversy, but many would still claim Judas as the founder of the sect, and accord it a considerable degree of influence in the revolutionary struggle. Whatever their precise origins, however, they may be taken as exemplars of prophetic (and to an extent apocalyptic) religion.

Known from Pliny the Elder, Philo and Josephus, the Essenes (who also lived in city communes) are now generally regarded as identical with the community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls. The word `Essenes' means the `pious ones'. They were descendants of the Hasidim (the `pious ones') who remained loyal to Jewish tradition in the face of their enforced Hellenization by the Syrians in the early second century bce. The Essenes claimed descent from Zadok too and opposed the attempt of the Maccabean rulers to usurp high priestly office without priestly descent. A Hasmonean/Sadducee coalition defeated the Essenes, however, and, led by a certain `teacher of righteousness' and in opposition to a `wicked priest', they retired to the desert `to prepare the way of the Lord' (cf. Isa. 40:3 and 1QS VIII.12--16). The Essenes claimed that the Temple authorities and worship were illegitimate and the masses of Israel therefore impure. They were the true Israel, setting themselves apart for holiness and purity and awaiting the day when God would send his Messiah(s) to lead them against the Kittim (Romans), to restore the Temple and priesthood, to execute judgement on their enemies, and to inaugurate the new age. Unmentioned in the New Testament -- although some claim John the Baptist as an Essene -- the sect offers numerous parallels to the beliefs and practices of early Christianity (e.g. in its eschatology, Messianic expectation, sense of election, use of scripture, worship, common meals, baptismal practice and attitudes to the Temple, marriage, wealth and the sharing of goods), as well as major differences (e.g. its exclusivism, hierarchical structure, strict attitude to the law, emphasis on ritual purity, sabbath observance and celibacy). In common with the Sadducees, they advocated strict adherence to the Torah, but in contrast to their rivals, they trusted to divine intervention rather than to individual initiative. They practised quietism in the present, but at the same time urged military preparedness for eschatological battle. Trusting to divine intervention, they disappeared in 68 ce, destroyed, it appears, in the fearsome advance of the Roman armies. They may, therefore, be taken as exemplars of the apocalyptic (and to an extent cultic) religion I have described.

Surviving the catastrophe, the Pharisees (meaning, it is suggested, the `separatist' people set apart for obedience to God) gained ascendancy after 70 ce, becoming leaders of the synagogue and opponents of early Christianity. Despite the confusing picture presented by our sources, it seems clear that they were progressive in their attitude to religion and innovative in their doctrine. Accepting a wide body of Jewish scripture as authoritative, and appropriating from Hellenistic and oriental culture ideas not found in the Torah (e.g. eschatology, apocalypticism and Messianism), they entertained belief in angels and demons, life after death, final judgement and resurrection of the dead. In this respect, they had little in common with their arch-rivals, the Sadducees, and much with Jesus and his followers. Exhibiting in legal matters both a liberal (the `house' of Hillel) as well as a conservative wing (the `house' of Shammai), they emphasized the importance of the oral and written law, and with it the need for ritual purity and tithing. Lay scholars rather than priests, they attempted to apply the laws of Temple purity to everyday life, promoting thereby (to use a `Protestant' expression) the `priesthood of all believers'. Although separated in religious terms from the `am ha 'arez or `people of the land', they exhibited in political affairs a democratic tendency, frequently emerging as protectors of the people's rights versus the government. Some Pharisees espoused political Messianism or apocalypticism. Most saw themselves, however, as a religious sect devoted to the Law rather than a political party (though the question of their relation to politics is debated). They may be taken, therefore, as the exemplars of legal religion, as outlined above.

Reference above to the `am ha' arez is a salutary reminder that, in discussing Jewish sects, it is easy to overlook the fact that the majority of Jews lived their lives without affiliation to any sectarian movement. Part of a largely poor, rural, peasant or artisan class, with little time, inclination or resources to appreciate the intricacies of theological doctrine or to observe the minutiae of religious practice, the average Jew was in the main only indirectly affected by Jewish sectarianism. Most Palestinian Jews lived in small villages rather than in the wealthier urban centres of the Hellenistic period. The term `am ha' arez itself has a variety of geographical, political, socio-economic or religious connotations. In the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible) it referred either to the native population, to non-Jews living in the Jewish homeland, to the common people as opposed to kings, royal officials or priests, or to the property-owning and politically influential (male) citizenry of a specific territory, as opposed to either the upper echelons or the lower strata of society. In the Rabbinic literature, it referred to those who did not observe the Jewish law (especially the laws of ritual purity) as opposed to the Pharisees or rabbis, and thus became a term of abuse for those regarded as lax or ignorant in matters of morality or religion. It is with such people, the `sinners', that Jesus is said to have freely associated, hence giving rise to Pharisaic criticism of him.

The world of the New Testament, then, is a fascinating world, both rich and diverse. It is, as we have seen, the world of the Roman Empire, the world of Greek language and civilization, the world of Jewish religion and culture. It was a world of unprecedented peace and prosperity, yet one punctuated by upheaval, unrest and uncertainty. It was a world of new philosophies and new religions which challenged the old order and the old gods. It was a world that believed in supernatural intervention in the affairs of humanity, in demon-possession, in angels and gods who visited humankind for good or ill, in portents that heralded the significant events in human life, the birth and death of its significant citizens and heroes. It was a world that accepted miracles as normal rather than paranormal, in life after death or resurrection of the dead, in the advent of a new age in which humankind's cares would be wiped out with the arrival of a new heaven and a new earth. In this age, men and women were offered a variety of philosophies and religions, a host of philosophers, magicians, exorcists, saviour-figures, prophets, priests and gods who would bring them varying degrees of health or salvation.

The citizen of the first-century world could adopt the philosophy of neo-Platonism, or that of the Pythagoreans, the Epicureans, the Cynics or the Stoics. He or she could join the new cults, those of Asclepius, or Dionysus or that of Orphism, or become initiates of the mystery religions of Isis, Cybele or Mithras. If a Jew, he or she could embrace cultic religion, worshipping or offering sacrifices in the Temple or attending the great Jewish feasts. He (less so she) could throw in his lot with the Zealots to fight for national liberation from the Romans. He could retire, on the other hand, from political or national life to lead a monastic life as an Essene, awaiting God's supernatural intervention in history, his sending of the Messiah, the dawn of the apocalyptic age, the restored temple, the new heaven and the new earth. Alternatively he could take on the yoke of the law, and become a Pharisee, devoted to the practice and observance of the Torah in the daily round of life. This is the world of the New Testament, and it is in the context of this world, its needs and aspirations, its hopes and fears, its world-view (or world-views), that the birth of Christianity must be viewed.