NT Back 3
Perhaps most important to understanding the NT is knowing something of the religious landscape.
I guess you could simplify it to Jewish and non-Jewish (i.e., Gentile) religions of Palestine. In terms of non-Jewish religion there was Graeco-Roman Religion. Graeco-Roman religion (= GRR) was polytheistic—belief in many gods—but with one supreme god: Zeus/Jupiter; the focus of GRR was the here-and-now rather than the afterlife (i.e., eternal life); GRR was sacrifice-based, i.e., the offering of animal sacrifices, and not so much theology-based; one variation of GRR was the so-called “Mystery Cults,” which used magic in their many rites. Also, in GRR, there was no separation between religion and state—unlike in our modern society. So in other words, Roman priests were seen as political figures, and vice-versa (e.g., 1 of Julius Caesar’s titles was “Pontifex Maximus,” Latin for “Supreme Priest”).
Then there was Jewish religion: Judaism. Two very major things should be said. First, there were basic theological and practice commonalities amongst Jews (scholars refer to this commonality as “Common Judaism”). Hence, theologically Jews believed in monotheism, monolatry (i.e., the worship of this one God, “Yahweh”), creation and providence, the importance of the synagogue, and the importance of the Jewish Temple and sacrificial system. In terms of practice, Jews would observe personal piety (e.g., prayer, scripture reading, and almsgiving), the Sabbath, circumcision, the Mosaic Law, and the dietary Laws. Scholars have recognized this about Judaism for ages. However, up until the 1990s (so for 1800-plus years of Christian scholarship), most Christian scholars failed to recognize that despite these commonalities, Judaism was a very pluralistic religion.
There were numerous Jews who considered themselves devotees of Judaism, but saw themselves as quite separate and distinct from other Jewish groups. One such group, for example, was the Pharisees. The Hebrew word behind “Pharisee” means “separate.” Pharisees included priests, Levites, and scribes (i.e., some Pharisees were priests, some Levites, some scribes); they tended to be middle class, and well educated. In terms of theological distinctives, Pharisees believed in the resurrection of the dead, in angels; they combined divine sovereignty and free will, they emphasized scripture and scripture interpretation, and perhaps most importantly, they believed in oral tradition: Pharisees believed that Moses not only gave the written Law, but he also gave the oral Law—how the written Law is to be interpreted; b/c it’s oral, it was never written down until much later (namely, in the Mishnah, which dates to about AD 200). In the Gospels, Jesus disputes the validity of the Pharisees’ oral tradition (e.g., Matt 15:1-9). The rabbis who compiled the Mishnah and the two Talmuds (the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds) between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD trace (or try to trace) their lineage to the Pharisees.
Another group which also appears in the NT is the Sadducees. The name “Sadducees” may be derived from “Zadok,” which is the preeminent priestly line in the book of Ezekiel. Only people who descended from the priestly line could be Sadducees (hence, this group was smaller than many other groups); they were upper class (since priests were high up on the social class ladder), and were well educated. In terms of theological distinctives, Sadducees emphasized the Jewish Temple and the sacrificial system (not too surprising), they rejected oral tradition, they denied the resurrection of the dead, they denied the existence of angels, and they also emphasized human free will, while minimizing divine sovereignty. Because this group was so closely tied to the Temple, when the Romans destroyed the Temple in AD 70 (remember the timeline I gave you?) this group disappeared shortly thereafter.
Another group, which doesn’t appear in the NT (at least directly) but is very important, is the Essenes. This group was broad in its make-up, and likely spawned at least the Pharisees and the Dead Sea Scroll community. This group was largely middle class. In terms of their theological distinctives, they believed in the resurrection of the dead, in angels, predestination; they were very eschatologically (end times) oriented, and stressed a coming messiah (or some cases, messiahs).
One group that pops up in name in the NT is the Zealots. This group was also known as the the “Sicarii” (which was the name of the daggers they secretly wore). This group was small in numbers but swelled substantially during the First Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). In terms of theological distinctives, they were quite Pharisee-like in most of their beliefs; you could perhaps consider them the radical wing of the Pharisees: they advocated radical civil disobedience, radical social-messianism, and martyrdom.
Another group which pops up in the NT (think especially John 4) is the Samaritans. Samaritans descended from Jews who had intermarried during Assyrian exile of the northern tribes of Israel (8th century BC). Their theological distinctives revolved around Mt. Gerasim being the true centre of Jewish worship rather than Jerusalem, and that only the Mosaic Law (i.e., the 5 books of Moses: Genesis to Deuteronomy) were inspired by God—the rest (Psalms, Proverbs, the Prophets, etc.) had been distorted by southern Jews and hence, did not constitute the Word of God.
There were still other Jewish groups. One of the largest and most influential would be the Jewish group responsible for the massive book, 1 Enoch. This book (about the size of the 5 books of Moses) was written and compiled between 300—160 BC. Numerous Jewish groups quote from 1 Enoch, and even some Christian groups do (e.g., in the NT, Jude 14-15). Because of this group’s influence, some scholars refer to this expression of Judaism as “Enochic Judaism,” which is characterized by its cosmic orientation—emphasis on end times and the roles of angels—and its stress on divine revelation.
Of course a group which has received a lot of attention in recent times is the Dead Sea Scroll (or Qumran) Community. A lot could be said about this group, but I’m only going to limit myself to a few points (but feel free to come back at me with further questions). This group existed from about the early 2nd century BC to about AD 73 (shortly after the fall of Jerusalem). Generally, the group was anti-Temple—not the Temple per se but the priests in charge of it—b/c they believed that the priestly leadership was corrupt; hence, they eventually absented themselves from Jerusalem and the Temple. They were also highly predestinarian in their view of God and history, and highly eschatologically oriented. Interestingly, this group’s views did seem to change over time: e.g., early on they believed in one messiah (a royal one), then later on, two messiahs (a royal one and a priestly one).
There are still other Jewish groups but I won’t get into them. Suffice it to say, the Judaism in and around the time of Jesus and the NT was quite varied, quite pluralistic. It’s wrong to view ancient Judaism as monolithic—i.e., all Jews believe the same things—that’s clearly wrong! That’s why I like to describe ancient Judaism as consisting of “denominations.” Like today (and of course, back some), evangelicals (I’ll narrow it to this group), have a lot of theological commonalities, e.g., the trinity, deity of Jesus, the inspiration of the bible, salvation by grace through faith, etc. Nevertheless there are significant differences that keep evangelicals from becoming/forming one mega-denomination, right? Hence, we have Baptists (and many different types of them), Alliance, Pentecostals, Evangelical Free, Associated Gospel, Brethren, etc. I think it’s historically much more accurate to think of ancient Judaism in those terms: as there being broad-based theological commonality, but with many different expressions (or as I say, “denominations”) within this religious commonality.