Download Let us outline very briefly some key characteristics

Let us outline very briefly some key characteristics of the cultures and contexts relevant to our
studies in the Ancient Mediterranean, noting that these cultures are not distinct, but have porous
boundaries: they did not stay apart from each other in “separate vessels”, but, over hundreds of
years, leaked into each other. Whilst scholars may have thought that the gospel was primarily a
document from either a Graeco-Roman or Judaic context, it is really wisest to keep a more open
mind and be prepared to see signs of engagement with both, not least because the cultures overlap.
The gospel straddles both Judaic and the Graeco-Roman contexts.
Ancient Mediterranean Societies
Scholars have, in recent years, undertaken significant studies about the societies of the ancient
world: how they functioned, their values and practices. Two sources are commonly used: modern
social scientific research and ancient rhetoric.

Modern social sciences provide valuable information about how societies are structured and
ordered, and what their members hold as key values and beliefs.

Ancient rhetoric is important because the debates and arguments of the ancients show us
what was important to them in gauging their social standing and status.
When we combine data from these two sources we can give a summary that looks something like
this:
 People measured their value and identity using criteria like shame and honour. How much
shame or honour might include a number of elements: where you came from, family, slave, free,
citizenship [of Rome, or another city], wealth, work, class, behaviour.
 Values were different for men and women. These were societies in which "proper" relations
between men and women were strictly policed by the conventions of society.
 These values were in limited supply: if someone else made a gain, you might make a loss. This
made society agonistic: people competed for what conveyed honour, and tried to correct or avoid
what caused them to lose honour.
Graeco-Roman Culture
Many older books talk about Hellenistic or Greek culture. Today, we would first qualify this by noting
that to talk only of Hellenistic thought ignores the ways in which the Romans subtly altered the
Hellenistic culture and ideas they encountered, and it is better to talk of Graeco-Roman culture.
These cultures did not see themselves as "closed", but were able to absorb ideas, values and
practices which they found attractive elsewhere. Space does not permit a full description of GraecoRoman society, so let us focus on elements which we might call religious in this short overview. For
the sake of this study religion refers to three things:

the role of the gods in relation to the community, city or state,

the role of the gods for a single person,

the explanation of how the world works, which embraces metaphysics, cosmology and
ethics.
Graeco-Roman society was polytheistic, that is the majority believed in a number of gods brought
together in what was called the pantheon. These gods are often identified as the Olympian gods,
believed to have their home on Mount Olympus. There were other gods associated with the earth,
known as the chthonic gods. There were also cults associated with heroes (characters like Herakles)
and the ancestors. By the time the New Testament was written, even the spirit or genius of the
emperor or city of Rome might be worshipped: worship was a sign of loyalty to the state, a practice
which can also be seen in the cults of Ptolemaic Egypt and the stories in Daniel 3.
Different religious practices were geared to different ends. Much of the worship which took place in
the main temples was associated with the well-being of the community or state (political religion).
The mysteries, or mystery religions, which might involve the same gods, provided rituals aimed at
ensuring that the individual would have a good afterlife: that they would not suffer or be punished
when they died. Questions about how life should be lived and the nature of the world were
addressed more by the philosophical schools than the state or mystery cults. These philosophical
schools included groups like the Stoics, Epicureans and Cynics. Others continued to be interested in
the writings of earlier philosophers like Aristotle and Plato (whose work would become popular later
in a revised form- Neoplatonism). Many of these schools shared a common vocabulary or set of
concerns which might be debated between them.
A Greek or Roman might devote their efforts to some, all, or none of these different religious
activities. Plato describes a character called Adeimantus (Republic 2.364d-e) who engages in all three
kinds of activities. So, too, does Plutarch in the Moralia 635, with the additional twist that the
philosopher who belongs to the mystery religions is described as being an Epicurean. This is odd
because Epicureans are commonly described as being atheists, who did not believe in any kind of
god. In fact, Epicureans did believe in gods, but counted them as invisible and not involved in this
world: not the usual gods of Graeco-Roman mythology. This may explain why Christians were also
called atheists by their Graeco-Roman critics: they denied the conventional beliefs about the gods.
Further, they were viewed with distrust because their refusal to take part in temple worship
(political religion) could be understood as disloyalty or treason.
The Graeco-Roman world also knew about magic: rites and rituals which were claimed to manipulate
events according to the wishes of the magician or client. Whilst the Romans had a high regard for
religion (Lat.-religio) which they viewed as a force for good in the life of their society, they were
highly critical of magic (Lat.- superstitio). We should be wary of applying our own distinctions
between magic and religion to the ancient world: for the Romans the primary characteristics of
magic were that it was focussed on personal needs, and was both manipulative and secretive.
Magical rituals might share the same elements, gods and characteristics as religious; it was the aim
and intention which really marked the difference. They also tended to brand as magic what they
viewed as alien or undesirable: so, a number of Roman writers described Christianity as superstitio.
Graeco-Roman society is also helpful for understanding how the church came to be the shape it did.
Many people, usually men, belonged to voluntary societies (which might share a religious or work
focus) in which people pooled their resources, or to patron-client groups in which the rich and
powerful showed their influence by supporting their clients financially, and the clients, in turn,
supported their patrons in civil matters. We might liken this to the "big man" who is seen in many
societies today, who is supported by his clients and in turn helps them with favours, jobs and his
influence. All these helped to shape the form of the church. Jesus, in many ways, will function as a
patron, or head of family. The church takes on some of the characteristics of a voluntary society.
However elements of these structures which did not fit with the values which Jesus taught and
practised were rejected. A clear example comes in Luke 22:24-27 where Jesus subverts the dominant
pattern of kingship (and thus of leadership and patronage) replacing it with a model of servant
leadership.
Judaic Culture
Judaic culture was different from Graeco-Roman, but not isolated from it. There had been trade
between Greece and Palestine from the 600s BCE, and Greek had come to be spoken as a result.
Even Judaic groups which would claim a high degree cultural purity, like the Maccabees, included
Jews with Greek names, and recorded their history in Greek.
What were the defining characteristics of Judaic culture? First the Jewish people were monotheists
who worshipped only one God, the God of Israel, identified by the Hebrew YHWH. Whilst Jewish
beliefs in God in the earliest period sometimes seem to depart from a strict monotheism when the
phrase "angel of the Lord" is used, the triumph of the Deuteronomic tradition meant that a stricter
monotheistic view had come to dominate the religious landscape. This exclusive focus on one God
was very different to the theological variety tolerated by Graeco-Roman culture, and was a puzzle to
non-Jews. That said, the Romans very quickly realised that the Jews would not be forced to worship
their gods, and any attempt to force the issue was bound to be a costly exercise. Out of respect for
Jewish traditions (which were considered to be very old: a quality which the Romans respected),it
was agreed that it would be more than adequate for Jews to offer prayers on behalf of the emperor
to their God within their permitted rituals. It is worth noting that Christianity, which was obviously
new and therefore highly suspect, was not given a similar concession, and early Christians came to
be persecuted on occasions when an issue was made of loyalty and venerating the emperor.
Judaism shared the same three functions as the religion and philosophy of the Greeks and Romans.
The worship of the one God had

a political element (often embracing the hope that Israel would be set free from political
domination at some point in history or at the end of history when God would complete his
plans for his world),

a personal element ( a number of Jewish groups believed in some form of life after death or
resurrection) and

a worldview (that God had created the world, given Israel a priestly role in mediating safety
from the forces of evil and chaos, and would finally restore his creation to a state in which
there would be no possibility of disorder).
This last point is often called eschatology: the study of the Last Things (Gk. -eschaton), and
traditionally, it embraces life after death, death and judgement. There was major disagreement on
these issues: some argued there was no life after death, others that there was a resurrection of the
dead, but this might be as an angel or a spirit (Acts 23:8). These themes might be described in
language which emphasised God's punishment of evildoers and is sometimes called apocalyptic.
Many of the writings of Second Temple Judaism explore these themes and hopes with descriptions
of chaos and destruction. Christian examples include Revelation and Mark 13. These writings, in
many ways function like prophecy. As such, they should not be taken simply as predictions of the
future but rather as comments on the state of our world. Read properly, they are reminders of the
need to make decisions about how to live in the here and now, how to persevere in the midst of
persecution and upheaval, and of the ultimate triumph of God over the forces of evil which torment
his people. For prophets do not tell the future, but speak on God’s behalf to provoke a faithful
response from his people.
The strict monotheism which had become such a part of much Judaism contributed to hostility to
the teaching of that new Jewish group who followed Jesus of Nazareth. One of the points of tension
was the apparent claiming of divine roles and status for Jesus. This was seen as compromising
monotheism, and was rejected by many Jewish theologians. Later Christian theology would react to
this claim by developing an understanding of God as Trinity (three persons, one god) which was
claimed as monotheistic, not tritheistic (three gods) or polytheistic (many gods). That process is,
however, beyond the scope of a commentary on John.
The Jewish people viewed themselves as a priestly people with a special role as mediators between
God and his creation. Their worship in the Temple and obedience to the commandments of God
ensured that chaos did not overwhelm creation. Order was maintained through the Temple cult and
the maintenance of ritual purity. This meant that one's behaviour, ethics, morality, or how one lived
was important. Response to God demanded right behaviour to a degree unparalleled in the majority
of Graeco-Roman cults. However, the Jews themselves did not always agree on how this should be
done.
A number of different Jewish groups (the ancient historian Flavius Josephus called them "schools"
like the different philosophical traditions of ancient Greece and Rome) offered different ways of
keeping purity, that is, of not breaking the commandments for right living set by God.

The Sadduccees argued that one only needed to keep the commandments as written in the
Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament). They did not believe in the resurrection
(Acts 23:8).

The Pharisees believed that it was too much of a risk to break any of those written
regulations so they "built a fence around the Torah", a wealth of oral traditions which
ensured that people never came near to breaking the written law. Opinions are divided
about how the Pharisees were perceived. Christians often have laboured under the
impression that the Pharisees were a hard and cruel group, but the reality is that they were
highly regarded for their piety. Jewish listeners to the gospels would have been surprised
initially to hear the way in which the Pharisees were described. Some scholars even suggest
that Jesus may have either had close links to the Pharisees, or even been one of them, which
would explain his many invitations to the meals and houses of Pharisees. However, his
interpretation of how one might keep pure and not break the rules in the Torah would come
to differ very much from theirs, which made it almost impossible for ordinary people to keep
ritual purity. Some scholars, like Daniel Boyarin, use this as the basis for a different
understanding of the Pharisees. The oral “tradition of the elders” which the Pharisees were
elevating to be as authoritative as Scripture was not accepted by all. Jesus’ arguments with
them may be seen as a rejection of such oral tradition and a return to conservative or
traditional readings of purity and practice based solely on the written Scriptures (Mark 7).
Pharisees also believed in the general resurrection (Acts 23:8): this text may be translated,
“resurrection, either as an angel or a spirit”, suggesting a debate about the nature of postresurrection life.

A third group has become known to us from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). These sectarians
hoped for the deliverance of Israel from foreign rule (the Kittim) and described themselves
as “sons of light”. The DSS give a picture of a group who maintained purity by withdrawing
from society and living in a very strictly ordered community: they appear to have believed
that their community’s rule of life would assist the return of a conquering Messianic figure.
Sometimes this group is identified with the Essenes. There are some difficulties with this:
scholars increasingly view them as different, though possibly related, groups. There are
question of how accurate the descriptions of the Essenes in the writings of Pliny and
Josephus might be. Josephus may not describe the Essenes accurately but make them an
ideal picture of what a "true Jew" might be to impress Roman readers. The Essenes may
have believed in reincarnation, if Josephus’ description is accurate.
For most Jews, the Temple, and taking part in the feasts and rituals performed there, were a vital
part of keeping purity. The DSS people had nothing to do with the Temple in Jerusalem which they
believed to have become completely and hopelessly corrupt in the second century BCE when a nonLevite had been appointed as High Priest. They believed they could maintain the standard of Temple
purity and all that it stood for by maintaining the rules of their community: they could be pure and
not go to the Temple. Scholars call this a process of "spiritualisation" or "sacrificialisation", in which
people are able to have the effects of worship by using alternatives to literally going to the Temple
(see Klawans, “Interpreting the Last Supper”, p. 6 & 14).
They were not the only group to do this. Ever since the destruction of the Temple and the
Babylonian exile described by Jeremiah, Jews had lived scattered around the known world, in what is
called the Diaspora [The Scattering]. Many Jewish communities were so far from Jerusalem that it
was not possible for devout Jews to attend the rituals held in the Temple after its restoration (Ezra
and Nehemiah). They developed an ingenious strategy to allow them to maintain purity without
travelling to Jerusalem. These communities would gather for worship in synagogues, which required
a group of 10 men to reach a require standard. When such a group met and read the rituals for the
Atonement, it was as good as being present in the Temple at Jerusalem for the rite itself. This
"spiritualisation" or "sacrificialisation" would allow Judaism to survive beyond the destruction of the
Temple in 70 CE. The pattern of worship developed in the synagogues meant that it was possible to
maintain the level of purity required without the Temple. This was to be one of the main
foundations for later rabbinic Judaism and the survival of Judaism to the present day.
The main point of this is to show that, for Jews, the question of how one lives correctly, maintaining
purity is crucial. Jesus' approach to purity, and its questions of who one relates to, what one does,
and how one loves, will again provide a number of pressure points with his contemporaries. The
synagogues were also important for the new Christian movement, as they provided a model of
contact and communication between different cities and towns. Just as Jews might travel using the
synagogue network, so did early Christians prior to setting up their own system.
Ever since the Babylonian captivity, the Jewish people had had to live with the reality of colonialism,
as a colonised people. Colonisers came and went (Medes, Persians, Ptolemies, Seleucids and
Romans), but liberation never came. Nevertheless, hope that the God of Israel who had set the
children of Israel free from the tyranny of Egypt in Exodus and at the Passover would come to his
people's aid persisted. A key figure in this was the Messiah (Hebrew), Christ (Greek) or Anointed One
(English): a heavenly figure, an agent of God who would intervene decisively and procure freedom
for Israel. There were a number of different views about this Messiah. Hopes like this were common
in the time: Josephus details a number of Messianic claimants at about the time of Jesus (Antiquities
17:271-84; 18:85-89; Jewish Wars 2:433-34,444; 4:510; 6:300-09). As late as the 130s CE the BarKochba revolt against the Romans in the time of Hadrian was driven by Messianic hopes. Some
thought the Messiah was divine, others a heavenly or angelic figure: there is much debate about
whether a figure called Metatron who appears in Second Temple literature and is often portrayed
like the Messiah was considered to be God, or a supernatural being of some lesser kind, like an
angel. Some thought the Messiah would be a prophetic figure like Moses (Deut 18:15; Exodus
20:17), whilst others expected a warrior-king in the style of David (Ps 110:1) Whilst warlike language
was often used, it was not necessarily meant to be read literally So there were beliefs in a teacherMessiah imbued with the Spirit and wisdom, often drawn from Isaiah 11 and 42 (Psalms of Solomon
17-18, 1Q28b, 4Q161, 4Q534, 4Q175, Similitudes of Enoch [1 Enoch 37-71], 4 Ezra [ 2Esdras 3-14]).
Such a Messiah would come to separate the righteous from the unrighteous. Sometimes, as in the
Qumran writings, the righteous were identified as a group within Israel, which, as a nation, also
included corrupt and unrighteous elements who would be weeded out.
Messianic thinking was not limited to conventional Judaism. The Prophet-King like Moses was a view
of the Messiah particularly held by the Samaritans, who called him the Taheb (“one who
returns/restores”). Judaic Messianic thinking may even have penetrated Roman thinking: the Roman
poet Vergil, in his 4th Eclogue, describes the birth of a special child who will usher in a golden age.
Against this backdrop, Christian Messianic thought is closer to the idea of the Messiah whose word
brings judgment. Yet their further claims that the Messiah would be found in the person of a man
who was tortured and crucified did not necessarily fit with these expectations. Whilst it has often
been thought that these Christian claims represent a radical departure from Messianic thinking, a
recent discovery suggests some Jews had earlier written of a suffering Messiah. The "Gabriel
Revelation", a text written with ink on a large stone and dated to the late first century BCE (about
the time Jesus was born) and found in 2000 CE on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, talks of a "prince
of princes" being put to death by a foreign army. This is most likely identified with a Roman force led
by Varus which brutally suppressed a Jewish revolt in 4BCE. This murdered prince is resurrected by
Gabriel after three days.
Such a text dramatically alters our understanding of the Messianic beliefs in circulation at the time of
Jesus because it means that the idea of a suffering Messiah may well have been present within
Second Temple Judaism before the first Easter. Does this undermine the credibility of the Christian
claims about Jesus? In no way. The fact that a similar belief is in circulation does not make it true,
and the Christian claim false. The presence of similar beliefs about "what kind of Messiah" no more
undermines claims made about Jesus than do the number of other Messianic claimants. It does
show that the Messianic hopes of the time were broad enough to include the claims made for Jesus,
and that such claims would have been comprehensible, given the existence of the earlier beliefs. No
Christian claims about Jesus depend on those statements of belief being completely new, original or
unique: they depend on the claims being considered true with respect to Jesus. In fact, study of both
the Old and New Testaments show that the writers of Scriptures use ideas from the cultures in
which they live to make their theological statements, and also use theological terms already found
there. That is why Paul can talk of Jesus as our Passover (1 Cor 5:6) and why the evangelists can use
that difficult term "Son of Man" (see 1:51).
When Christian writers take existing ideas and terms and apply them to Jesus they are, in fact,
engaging in a practice which is known as "re-accentuation" (Newsom, “Apocalyptic Subjects”, p.. 67), that is taking existing ideas and investing them with a new meaning or significance. This is exactly
what happens when Jesus is identified as Messiah: the term is re-accentuated both with respect to
content and to its identification with Jesus of Nazareth. The gospel of John is full of theology of this
kind: the identification of Jesus with the Temple (2:21) and imagery like the "Good Shepherd" (10)
are two examples. This practice still occurs: contemporary African theologians who describe Christ as
the proto-Ancestor are re-accentuating the concept of ancestor with regard to Jesus
We could sum up this overview of Judaic culture by saying that it has much in common with the
Christianity which would evolve from it: an understanding of the world as created and being
transformed by God, of God intervening to save his people, notably through the Messiah, and of the
need to respond to God in faith and with behaviour which echoed his values. Tension arises from
whether or not the re-accentuations of Judaic theology and practice offered by the followers of
Jesus were valid.