As recorded between the books of Joshua and Judges, numerous sites throughout Canaan were conquered. In total, within both books, 31 sites were destroyed, or a specific king was defeated1 to demonstrate Israel’s growing and settled dominance throughout the land of Canaan. From an approach to the West, then South, and then to the North,2 one city fell after another as a form of judgment from Yahweh, where He gave this land of conquest to the Israelites.
The conquest of Canaan was intended to deliver the land of Canaan to the Israelites. As specified by Numbers 33:51-56, the people of Israel were to dispossess the people of the land and dwell there within their promised inheritance. The direct destruction that was to occur was specifically toward objects of idolatry and false worship. Yet, as recorded in Judges 1:27-36, there were lapses in obedience where Israel did not drive out Canaanites among specific areas but instead enslaved them. As a precursor to spiritual failures ahead, this account typifies what was to happen to Israel (Num 33:56) in later years.3 Ultimately, the conquest would be placed on hold until Israel completed a period of testing (Judges 2:20-3:4).4
Scholars propose five models to “reconstruct reality” in apparent contradiction to the biblical text.5 Largely to account for variations in early and late date Exodus timelines and reconcile or contest the historical differences between Judges 1 and Joshua 21:43-45. The Merrill text, “Kingdom of Priests,” gives a close-up look at various additional models, too.
While carefully reading through Merrill’s accounts of Joshua’s campaigns, it becomes clear that there were times that Yahweh would fight for His people6 as some inhabitants of Canaan would become herem*, along with their forbidden possessions of false worship. As campaigns formed to traverse throughout the regions of Jericho, Judea, Samaria, and upper regional areas near Jezreel, territorial dominance continued in fulfillment of Yahweh’s instructions. Israel did not destroy all pre-existing infrastructure or wipe out all populations but instead displaced and destroyed relevant people where necessary. In general, and by overriding principle, Israel’s conquest was victorious, but the whole effort was mixed with disobedience and idolatry. Yahweh knew of the corrupting influence Canaanite culture would have upon Israel, which was why it was necessary to destroy everything that could have a negative bearing on God’s intent for His people.
Having today finished Hosea in my daily reading, these words prominently stood out, “we will say no more, ‘Our God,’ to the work of our hands.” (Hos 14:3).
The disobedience of Israel then was still the same matter long after Joshua’s conquest; it was then long after the same issue of idolatry. Then, before, and now it was and is a huge problem. The idolatry that brings apostasy is treachery before Yahweh and invites judgment. The God of Israel who loved His people and later as the people of “Ephraim” and Samaria fought for them and was as the dew of the land that they would take root, grow, and blossom.
As we read in Joshua, Yahweh inserted His people centrally into a region where large populations engaged in the worship of false gods. Moreover, the surrounding areas throughout Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, and Egypt encompassed Israel, where idolatry was widespread. Yet even while Israel invaded Canaan after making their way past Edom and Moab, they became an epicenter of judgment toward people and their gods over quite some time. Until the Kingdom of Yahweh was formed, from the time they stepped toward Canaan from the East, the distribution of continents circled about them as evil activity in many forms was present in abundance. The people of Israel were explicitly situated to serve as ground zero within a territory saturated in the worship of gods. They also were judged just as before as His people were delivered from Egypt.
It is helpful to recognize that individual tribes were responsible for eradicating people who were the inhabitants of Israel’s inherited land. For some reason, I earlier thought that the conquest was a single homogenous effort, and Israel swept through the various regions one after another as a whole. Sort of centralized waves of divide and conquer of peoples and false gods as a forthgoing campaign. Stages of successive advancement seem to indicate their concentration of focus, strength, and resources even as the tribes of Gad, Reuben, and the partial tribe of Manasseh gave their oath to fight and contribute to the removal of the Canaanites. However, it makes sense that by necessity the effort was concurrent and decentralized given the population variations in place with their respective geographic proportionality.
Israel was inserted into the land of Canaan after their time in Egypt to continue the judgment against the gods vis-a-vis the nations that encompassed them. While Israel was displaced from Egypt and delivered from slavery, Yahweh placed them among populations, and “gods” worshipped throughout the continents that surrounded them. Their displacement was a strategic positioning by Yahweh, from the false gods judged in one area to the limited destruction of Canaan and its gods. Short term, a formation of a Kingdom of one covenant, and long term, to set the stage for an everlasting kingdom of another.
* 3051 I. חֵרֶם (ḥē·rěm): n.masc.; ≡ Str 2764; TWOT 744a, 745a—1. LN 53.16–53.27 consecrated possession, i.e., a thing devoted to the LORD (Lev 27:21, ); 2. LN 20.31–20.60 thing set apart to utter destruction, given to the ban, i.e., a thing or person that will be destroyed as a consecration to the LORD (1Sa 15:21; Isa 43:28), see also domain LN 53.16–53.27 DBL Hebrew
Ludwig Koehler et al., The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 354.
__________________
1 Ralph K. Hawkins, “Joshua, Book of,” ed. John D. Barry et al., The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). 2 Michael A. Grisanti, History of the Covenant People, Module 3 Lectures: “Israel’s Exodus from Egypt”, 2021 3 Eugene H. Merrill, Mark F. Rooker, Michael A. Grisanti, “The Word and the World: An Introduction to the Old Testament” (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2011), 294. 4 Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Interpreting the Historical Books: An Exegetical Handbook, ed. David M. Howard Jr., Handbooks for Old Testament Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Academic & Professional, 2006), 94. 5 David M. Howard Jr., Michael A. Grisanti, “Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts” (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2003), 143-154. 6 Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 126
Among various ways of exploring the physical and spiritual geographies of the Ancient Near East, there are two categorical ways to understand the landscape of the Bible topically. Historical and Literary geography studies work together to render an understanding of biblical meaning to inform and spiritually affect readers.1 An approach to Scripture that involves either of these categories helps form a framework to recognize the environment by which theological communication occurs through various forms of literary genre. The physical and associative properties of different lands we read about in the Bible carry significant weight and meaning.
Historical geography concerning a region centers simply around areas with different place names having varying characteristics. Such as topography, seasonality, climate, natural resources, and terrain features, it becomes further possible to understand events, cultures, and people’s worldview within a specific territory. At a surface level, historical events upon the lands of the Bible shape what readers come to comprehend and possibly believe about the purpose of its compilation. Readers can inductively or deductively reason and conclude what’s observed by following historical events. Namely, events within a geographical setting that have a bearing on what transpired to support the intent and breadth of its messaging.
As people of the flesh made of the natural elements of carbon and water, we remain connected to the land in which we reside. While society today is often detached from the natural world, it was far different from the numerous peoples of Scripture. From agriculture to dairy and fisheries, the people of the Bible were heavily dependent upon what the land would yield while geographically situated. Temperate rains and seasons of dry arid climates directly influenced where people would live, what they would plan, where they would go, and how they would worship.2
As narrative, poetic, and even apocalyptic literature plays out in Scripture, we see the historical interaction of people through their geographical setting. If historical geography is the canvas and ingredients of biblical lands, then literary geography is the paint, ink, and brushes by which associated language forms historical meaning. The land and the people of the Bible are connected to live out and communicate historical and theological messaging to shape our worldview and perspectives today concerning overall and detailed points of interest.
Christ was God incarnate, who lived while “locked in time and space.”3 As such, He was baptized (Mt 3:16-17) in the Jordan River. To thereafter go into a desolate wilderness to be tempted by the devil (Mt 4:1). The transition from one physical position to another with such contrast illustrates the area’s diverse nature in relative proximity to each other. Conversely, where Jesus spoke to the Apostle Peter, “on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18), they were located in Caesarea-Philippi. Specifically, as it was a widely known region having a high concentration of cultic activity, there is a large cave there that represented the gate to the underworld in the mind of pagans in the area.
Moreover, their immediate departure from Caesarea-Philippi to Mt Hermon was where the transfiguration occurred (disputed). It was a ground zero event in which Peter, James, and John witnessed the glorified Christ transformed before Elijah and Moses. Intentionally at the apex of cult central while in the territory of Bashan. Why did that happen specifically at that geographical location? Why did they go there? There are significant reasons for it, both of enormous historical and literary significance.
There are further geographical correlations that come to mind in a practical sense concerning water availability during times of Israel’s distress. When thinking about Hezekiah’s tunnel routed to within the walls of Jerusalem, the initial reason for its existence comes to mind. It was a source of water excavated in preparation for an expected siege from the forces of Babylon. We observe in Scripture that Hezekiah formed the pool and the water channel (2 Kings 20:20) to improve the survivability of Jerusalem’s occupants for a long duration.
As Hezekiah’s tunnel was channeled to bring water from the outside of the city of ancient Jerusalem, his whole effort is reminiscent of what Ahab did at Hazor in anticipation of an attack from Assyria. In 2 Kings 15:29, we read about how the occupants of Hazor were captured and taken to Assyria. However, before Assyria’s invasion, King Ahab hardened the city of Hazor. He dug a water shaft about 130 feet deep to a water table below, getting back to the early 10th century BC. Overall, there were 22 layers of strata below Tel Hazor.4 From the time of Joshua’s conquests when he burned Hazor to the ground (Jos 11:10-13) to the time of the Maccabees, the water source was of crucial importance to Northern Israel.5
The water system of Hazor vertically correlates to the water system of Hezekiah horizontally. From the historical account of the preparation of invasion from Assyria to the North, I conclude that Hezekiah prepared for the siege of Babylon as prophesied by Isaiah (2 Kings 20:16). While this comparison is not explicitly within Scripture, I think Hezekiah knew of the Hazor water system and applied it to the needs of Jerusalem in a similar manner. Hezekiah knew that what happened in Samaria by a foreign nation would befall Judah of a different foe as orchestrated by Yahweh. To minimize the loss of life and improve survivability, Hezekiah prepared the water system of Jerusalem, just as Ahab did for Hazor.
The people of Israel were situated biblically to appear coherent with what Yahweh intended in terms of their placement. The geological formations that preceded the Exodus supported the peoples of the Fertile Crescent. To include Abraham and many others, as evident within Scripture. I can’t help but wonder about God’s method to shape that region and its adjacent territories. From our reading and Dr. Grisanti’s lectures, we learn about why the people of Israel were in Canaan, but then “how” the canvas was set is of considerable interest. The reason or rationale concerning the tribes of Israel and their placement attests to their purpose. Especially as a kingdom of Priests, which carries the most weight in terms of our understanding. However, what’s of interest is the method Yahweh uses to form the diverse nature of the Ancient Near East.
Natural geological processes are evident, but what is the role of physical changes around the behavior of matter (solids, vapor, liquid, gases, etc.)? Various geographical locations host people of different cultures and languages with deposited natural resources. Yet, does the emergent existence of rock formations, vegetation, tides, atmospheres, topologies, rifts, valleys, etc., have some “say” or bearing on what God does? Or is it that the land and its elements are in a passive state? For example, consider these phrases throughout the Bible. We read about “living water,” “living rock,” “dead sea,” “mountains fall on us,” “rocks cry out,” and so forth. It seems as natural processes are participative; they are yet without consciousness. Are they in “witness” to God’s glory? That they glorify God by their state and behavior to accomplish His intended will?
We observe natural forces such as glaciers, winds, and rivers that carve valleys. And we see tectonic plate movements that form rifts and mountain ranges. There is either direct or indirect causation occurring that testifies to God’s work to include the human activity of utmost spiritual significance. So it would be of very high value to better understand the relationship between God and His living creation to see “how” physical design is either actively responsive or passively following natural processes through periodic intervention. Perhaps it’s neither, or maybe it’s both.
____________________
1 John A. Beck, Discovery House Bible Atlas. Discovery House, 2015. 11-12. 2 Ibid. Beck, 10. 3 Barry J. Beitzel, The Moody Atlas of the Bible, p. 14. 4 Avraham Negev, The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land (New York: Prentice-Hall Press, 1990). 5 John H. III Brangenberg and David K. Stabnow, “Hazor,” ed. Chad Brand et al., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 728.
A current Oxford dictionary defines the term “Historiography” as the study of writing about history. The etymological facts from the Greek language support that definition. However, a student of history should generally understand historiography as the interpretation of written and unwritten historical events as preserved from valid historical sources.1 The distinction made between the study of history and historiography is clearly articulated by what each is and does. Widely put, history concerns events of the past, while historiography is about interpreting historical facts. Historiography is a composition of its various contributing factors in either literary or nonliterary form.
Through formal or informal articles of written material, historiography informs us about people, places, and past events to communicate historical, biblical, and theological meaning. Often, a substantive meaning with numerous tangible and observable geographical locations, landmarks, and archaeological artifacts educates us and piques our interest. Most especially concerning historical significance with immense depth and range of written work that builds a comprehensive view of what happened back in time.
Like pieces of a puzzle, literary, physical, and metaphysical objects form the basis of recognizable materials for interpretation and understanding. Specifically, accurate analytical descriptions of those historical objects offer an interpretive value that builds coherent knowledge leading to a reliable and true meaning of interest. Historical things that are rooted in objective facts form substance through writings of intended communication, especially by literary genre or written materials and by unintended circumstances from physical materials, structures, or relics of the past such as art, attire, utensils, or pottery.
Historiography matters because by it, we understand objective facts about what happened in the past.
Researchers, scholars, and historians who have a low or indifferent view of Scripture can take it as suspect and theologically loaded, so they approach the Bible with blind objectivity at best. Virtually all scholars reject supernatural revelation2 while the historical meaning of Scripture is subordinate to its theological messaging. The concern of the Bible is not a linear and chronological account of narrative events to historically align with activities that occurred over time with sequential calendrical precision. Individuals who approach Scripture without confessional commitments will not (probably cannot) recognize its full authority and reliability to begin from. Consequently, efforts around the reconstruction of Israel’s historical events become more subjective around a mixed patchwork of speculation to build cases around.
There are numerous examples of how some scholars, historians, theologians, academics, or students view historical events of the Bible differently. The popular articles between Bryant Wood and Kathleen Kenyon illustrate the differences in outcomes concerning what happened during the raid and destruction of Jericho that Dr. Wood eventually validated through the analysis of pottery. His research, rooted in a theological commitment to Scripture, supported his approach to prevail over Ms. Kenyon’s assertions concerning what happened at Jericho, contrary to the biblical record.3 The primary difference between them was about the authority of Scripture.
There are further examples of historical details around the flood of Noah (Gen 6:9-9:17), as to whether it was global or local (i.e., John Walton, Tremper Longman III, Gleason Archer, and others). Or the Exodus matter (Ex 3-19) and its timeline during the correct era to comport with the biblical narrative. Moreover, ANE epics are often relied on as a source of comparison to dispute the historical accuracy or validity of the OT. At the same time, further research and archaeological discoveries continue to reveal historical certainties that align with biblical truth. Just not in a way that scholars, academics, or skeptics want to fit a flawed anti-supernatural worldview.
___________________
1. Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, Second Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008), 27–28. 2. Ibid, 21. 3. Bryant G. Wood Ph.D., Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence, Associates for Biblical Research, accessed May 10th, 2021. https://biblearchaeology.org/research/chronological-categories/conquest-of-canaan/2310-did-the-israelites-conquer-jericho-a-new-look-at-the-archaeological-evidence
The purpose of this post is to present an up-close look at the Pharisees of the New Testament and their often-adversarial relationship with Jesus. The sharp differences between Pharisee beliefs and practices stood in sharp contrast with the teachings of Jesus. They often stood in opposition to Jesus’ actions and His teachings, whether by parables, instructions, direct rebuke, or exhortations. Jesus’ teachings and claims were magnified before the Pharisees of the first century as confrontations occurred with regularity. As a body of Judaic religious leaders, they rejected Jesus’ claims, His miraculous activity, and divinity as their Messiah as written about by the prophets.
Background
During examination between the Pharisees and Jesus’ views, the weight of authority to determine the defining validity of what Jesus spoke about in the gospels and, more generally, the Old and New Testaments as a whole rests with Scripture. There is a range of substantive issues between Pharisee beliefs and Jesus’ teachings accompanied by His activity and the indwelling Holy Spirit. The research here concerns the tension, friction, antagonism, and hostility from the Pharisees as narrated in the gospels with few exceptions.
To explicitly identify and characterize the Pharisees as a body of religious authorities, they were a group of Jewish individuals who required stringent adherence to ritual law and the tradition of their predecessors.1 They were a pious religious party that was viewed by the common Israel populace as authoritative in matters of the Torah and Old Covenant requirements. The Pharisees were one group that carried authority among various others. They were recognized as custodians of the law but were not in adherence to it themselves (Mt 23:1-3). Throughout popular thought today, the Pharisees as a whole have a reputation of uptight legalism that often ran counter to the interests of Christ and His early followers, who were the Jews within Jerusalem, Judea, and surrounding territories.
History
To adequately enter into the world of the Pharisees of the New Testament, it is necessary to understand their background and the history that contributed to their religious beliefs. Their predecessors and origin are of some speculation and controversy, but proponents advocate their history as successors to the Hasidim. The Hasidean movement from the Maccabean era points to its contribution to the pious Jewish history during its struggles against Rome. The Hasideans were “mighty warriors of Israel, everyone who offered himself willingly to the law”2 as therefore inferred there is speculation they were the Jewish ancestors of the separatist Pharisees.
Identified as among three sects of the Jews, the Pharisees were among the Sadducees and Essenes.3 The ancient Jewish historian Josephus makes clear their distinctions in belief among each other concerning fate. Pharisees believed that individual persons were partially involved in their future through participatory actions. People were liable to fate but not controlled by it as a matter of certainty. By comparison, the Essenes believed that fate governs all things according to certain determinism. The Sadducees believed there was no such thing as fate and that the conduct of people was within their power that leads to self-controlled outcomes.
The Pharisees were people hyper-sensitive about adherence to the requirements of the Mosaic law as they were deeply concerned about the historical causes of Israel’s trauma by invasion, siege, captivity, and enslavement in Babylon (586 B.C.). Their views about what occurred concerning violations of the law led to divine punishment. Consequently, settled within them was the passion for adhering to the Mosaic law as they understood it from the Torah and writings of the prophets. The Pharisees were committed to abiding by the law in its moral, traditional, ceremonial, and ritual expressions to assure that no further possibility of divine judgment to follow. They were committed to the law to absorb it as a lifestyle and profession that often weighed on the common people as hardships and oppressive.
Beliefs & Doctrines
The Scribes at the time of the New Testament were the scholars that Pharisees often relied upon.4 They generally were not priests, but Rabbinic individuals dedicated to tradition, ritual purity, and accurate interpretation of the law. After a period of Israel’s rebellion against Rome, Pharisees became the governing body of Jewish life. They believed that Torah was a dynamic and living force for further doctrinal developments. This view of the Torah contributed to their open-ended perspective concerning the meaning of the written text. Yet additional doctrinal developments contributed to beliefs such as the resurrection of the body, final judgment, and rewards and punishment in the afterlife.5 Over time, it became a matter of course that Pharisees would develop the oral law and assign equal weight to it compared to the written law based upon a rationale about setting up fencing around the Torah (Pirkē Aboth).6
The oral law largely stemmed from “holding to the tradition of elders” (Mark 7:3,5). With the Pharisaic view that the oral law was equally authoritative to the Torah, disputes with Jesus throughout the New Testament were inevitable and became pervasive. Jesus often disagreed with the formation of “law” by oral expression among Jewish ancestors. Throughout the gospels, Jesus interacted with the Pharisees more than any other group. Pharisees were often in confrontation with Jesus because of various interests concerning the Torah, the elders’ oral law, and traditions. Jesus railed against the Pharisees as “blind guides” and “hypocrites” (Matt 23:24-25) as they neglected and abandoned covenant principles in exchange for the technical details and requirements of ritual stipulations that originate from oral laws according to traditions.
Confrontations
The oral law primarily originated from “holding to the tradition of elders” (Mark 7:3,5). With the Pharisaic view that the oral law was equally authoritative to the Torah, disputes with Jesus throughout the New Testament were inevitable and became pervasive. Jesus often disagreed with the use and assertions of “law” by oral expression among Jewish ancestors. Throughout the gospels, the Pharisees opposed Jesus, His teachings, and His Ministry. While some accepted Jesus’ teachings and believed in Him, they were ultimately among those responsible for His crucifixion.
Within the gospels, there is a running list of hostile encounters from the Pharisees against Jesus. They demanded a sign to demonstrate His messianic status (Mt 12:38-42 pp Lk 11:29-32 See also Mt 16:1-4 pp Mk 8:11-12). They questioned Him on matters of the Law (Mt 19:3-9 pp Mk 10:2-9 See also Mt 22:15-22 pp Mk 12:13-17 pp Lk 20:20-26; Mt 22:34-40 pp Mk 12:28-34; Jn 8:3-11). They accused Him of blasphemy (Mt 9:2-7 pp Mk 2:3-12 pp Lk 5:17-26). They accused Him of being demon-possessed (Mt 9:32-34; 12:22-24; Mk 3:22). They criticized His healing people on the Sabbath (Mt 12:9-14; Mk 3:1-6; Lk 6:7; 14:1-6; Jn 9:13-16 Lk 7:36-39; 15:1-2; 19:37-40; Jn 8:13; 9:39-41).7 While some Pharisees believed in Jesus (Acts 5:5), the prevailing sentiment of the Pharisees as a whole was in violent opposition to Jesus and His mission. In thoughts, words, and actions, they roiled in hatred for Yahweh incarnate as Messiah of their forefathers. In the gospel text, Jesus doesn’t parse His words to some of the Pharisees, but at them as a body of religious authorities He condemned. There are no prominent exceptions within the New Testament that weigh against the evil they directed toward the Son of God their Messiah.
It is useful to get a closer look at the interactive details between the Pharisees and Jesus to understand a pattern of objections. More importantly, for spiritually grave reasons, it is necessary to recognize and accept what Jesus meant when He said, “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt 5:20). To get a clear view of what the differences were from the perspective of Christ, it is, therefore, necessary to recognize and understand His anger, parables, and authority over what transpired at each occurrence.
When taking a careful look at the angst and strife the Pharisees brought to Jesus, it becomes apparent there was a familiar pattern of animosity placed before Him. There was not an extensive range of root causes that explain the rejection and difficulties. The Pharisees held closely to the Torah, oral law, and traditions that all carried equal weight and ran counter to the teachings of Jesus. It is written that Jesus is the fulfillment of the law given by the Torah (Matt 5:17-18). Still, the oral law and the traditions of flawed men of Judaism who originated regulations and fencing around the law posed contradictions to their Messiah and Lord. Jesus called the Pharisees false teachers (Mt 15:14) and pointed to their error and neglect of the “weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness.” His disagreements with the Pharisees were fundamental. Their focus centered around man-centered requirements that were about rituals and meta details attached to the law that carried no weight of interest to Yahweh.
A close examination of Luke 12:1 gives a glimpse into Christ’s thinking. He spoke to His disciples, “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” This leaven is also separately referenced in Matthew 16:12 and Mark 8:15 to further its meaning around their mixing or oral law and tradition as having a pervasive souring effect. As the Pharisees had come to fear more deeply what could become of Israel by the abandonment of covenant stipulations of the law, they were building for themselves and others stringent requirements yet were not abiding by them. Christ’s disciples and followers were taught principles by direct instruction and parables that fulfilled the law from the heart while delivering a new covenant to them. Jesus’ teachings were not about abolishing the law but were about fulfilling it by satisfying its intent by principles of love, obedience, and goodwill from the heart.
As Pharisees were bent on abiding by the law of themselves, their fathers, and the Torah, they pressed Jesus about His teachings. They referred to Him as a teacher (Mt 12:38, Mk 12:13-14) while demanding to know by what authority He forgave, healed people, and gave instructions to others. Their objections to what Jesus taught were from a place of long-held self-derived power given and accepted by the Jewish government (i.e., Herod and temple priests) and the people they feared (Mk 11:32). There was a substantial religious and social weight upon their desire to know the authority by which Christ taught people and proclaimed His message. As it was necessary to validate the teachings of Jesus and its substance, the Pharisees questioned Him about His status. Not by what He taught, but by what He did.
The Pharisees wanted to know if Jesus thought He was the Messiah. Not if He was the Messiah, but if whether or not He thought of Himself as such. On more than one occasion, they questioned Him of this concern of theirs. They were in fear of His teachings and what it meant to the Jewish people subjected to the Roman empire. In their view, the teachings of Christ were disruptive to the legalistic tenets of Judaism, and tensions caused between Judaism and the populace of early Christianity would prove troublesome. The Pharisees were in fear of what could happen to them. It was a cultural arrogance and anxiety rooted in religious legalism over God and the Roman government, who opposed what their Messiah did and spoke.
As a case in point, consider the exchange between the Pharisees and Jesus after performing an exorcism (Lk 11:14-15). As before, during the encounter when He spoke of the two sons parable (Matt 32:28-32), the Pharisees questioned His authority then, too. In a setting where they were among people during the time of Jesus’ teaching, the Pharisees first asked of what authority He taught in the temple (Matt 21:23). Even worse, at a separate instance, the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit as they attributed His exorcism of a possessed man to Beelzebul, an ancient Canaanite god–the ruler of demons (Lk 11:15). Their condescension and inflammatory accusations on multiple occasions returned to their beliefs about the law.
Even under adversity, Jesus spoke of the belief of Pharisees. While they witnessed the work of John the Baptist in righteousness as to the law, they did not believe him. Yet, the despised tax collectors and prostitutes did believe him and were given entrance to the Kingdom. The accusatory beliefs of the Pharisees were not in alignment with what God and their forefathers expected. Jesus’ teachings were not contradictory to the Mosaic law but were the fulfillment of it through a new covenant of grace and repentance through Him.
The ordinary people of Israel held Pharisees in high regard.8 As they likely communicated to the common people, their interpretation of Scripture was on par with divine authority, which drew favorable attention to them to elevate their status. While the people also revered John the Baptist, they also respected their religious leaders. The conflicts between them often went unresolved even after the capture, trial, and death of Jesus. As religious leaders of the Jewish community, their presence at the temple and among the synagogues meant that they had developed relationships as friends and family. Relationships at a distance because of Pharisaic sensitivities to defilement. Their unrelenting focus upon ritual purity isolated them from people even amid fellowship among synagogues and the temple.
Not all Pharisees were hostile to Jesus. Several accounts within Scripture indicate some had come to believe in Him. In all cases, to infer a weight of belief, they placed in Jesus and His teachings faith over the Pharisees. There was among them a departure in the confidence of the oral law and tradition. Some dined with Jesus (Lk 7:36), others warned Him of danger (Lk 13:31), and leaders sought Him out to learn more and follow Him (Jn 3:1-2). While Pharisees became disciples, they effectively left behind Judaism, and the requirements of tradition, the oral law, and ritual cleanliness that often were barriers to what Jesus taught.
Paul the Apostle himself was a Pharisee who spoke of his status as a liability in exchange for the all-surpassing knowledge of Christ. He traded in his beliefs in the law for Christ and what He taught through the Holy Spirit and the course of His ministry (Php 3:4-11). As with Paul, even after the death, resurrection, and ascension, the Pharisees were a prominent religious party9 until the temple’s destruction in 70AD. Various Scripture references attested to the surrender of Pharisees to the Lord and became instrumental in the Kingdom’s development (Acts 15:5). They believed in Jesus’ teachings and abandoned their earlier way of understanding the Torah and covenantal intent.
Conclusion
Pharisaic beliefs of the first century became magnified by their interaction with Christ. Their beliefs illuminated during their encounters with Jesus helped to identify who they were as a religious party of ancient Judaism during the second temple period. There are surface-level details about what they believed with a bit of historical background given by the apocryphal sources of 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus. There are enough distinctions between them and other religious parties to understand their place and activity within Jewish history, but limited Jewish sources stand apart from later rabbinic literature.
The historical trauma of the Jewish people contributed to their desire to regain faithfulness to the Torah. However, they went too far. The Pharisees developed a comprehensive system of beliefs around oral law and tradition that ran counter to covenant principles. Along with the Priests, Scribes, Herodians, Sadducees, Sanhedrin, Essenes, and others, their inevitable rejection and condemnation of Christ was a necessary fulfillment of prophecy (Matt 21:42). To a large degree, the contrast between Christ’s teachings and their strongly held commitments represents the change of the old covenant to the new. With that change was enormous resistance that ushered in keeping a new “law” or covenant. Where those in Christ would by His teaching learn anew, “I give you a new law, that law is, “Love each other.” As I have loved you, so you also love each other.” Jesus’ fulfillment of the Torah accompanied His declaration that to love the Lord is the great and first commandment of the law. Then with the second commandment to love your neighbor as yourself. They are the two commandments that the law and the prophets depend on in support of the new covenant.
Citations
____________________________ 1. Martin H. Manser, Dictionary of Bible Themes: The Accessible and Comprehensive Tool for Topical Studies (London: Martin Manser, 2009). 2. The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1989), 1 Mac 2:42. 3. Flavius Josephus and William Whiston, The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1987), 346. 4. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 516. 5. Ibid. 6. Robert Henry Charles, ed., Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, vol. 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913), 691. 7. Ibid. Manser. 8. Aaron Valdizan, “BTS521, Historical Background of the New Testament Course Notes,” Unpublished course notes, The Master’s University, 2018, 133 9. David Witthoff, ed., The Lexham Cultural Ontology Glossary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014)
The book entitled “Backgrounds of Early Christianity” by Everett Ferguson is a comprehensive survey of historiographical topics centered around the Mediterranean world of the first century. While topics span subject matter that primarily concentrated on what the first-century Christian world looked like within its historical setting, the book provides a limited and topical view of what significant events preceded it. Namely, the political and military histories to explain how and why ancient Empires flooded the area to achieve their objectives and interests. From historical Macedonia that gave rise to the Diadochi and its Ptolemaic and Seleucid empires to Rome and its rulership through conquest, administration, and oppression were conditions that set the context of what transpired during the first century.
Introduction
The historical conditions present during this period were not just political and militaristic. There were enormously significant social, cultural, religious, and philosophical advances favorable and corruptive. Altogether they were imported into the worlds of early Judaism and Christianity that had a direct and significant bearing upon lifestyle, language, education, and overall social order. While these conditions and pressures weighed heavily on the people of ancient Judeo-Christian development, the States, or governing bodies, changed from one to another, all having competing interests over time. Over time, from all geographical directions, there remained a persistent convergence of imported good and evil that imposed circumstances orchestrated upon the region that were not as deeply applied elsewhere beyond the perimeter of the Mediterranean.
Structure & Substance
Throughout the historical context of early Christianity, interwoven was the background of Greek culture, Roman authority, and their religious practices deeply rooted in ancient paganism. These key areas had a significant bearing on how society conducted itself while integrated within Jewish and Christian life. From government to everyday families in the area, social structures placed enormous weight upon how laws were originated and implemented. Local and regional economies required the support of governing authorities to provide stability for mixed cultures to form and produce the human outcomes sought by often unwanted influences. Intermingled within Jewish and Christian traditions were the new and advancing forms of thought and expression. When considering the reach of influential Greek and seductive Roman pressures brought to the region, there is a wide swath of social conditions that placed weight upon individuals and interrelated societies between Jews and neighboring nations.
The text in this review covers numerous areas of interest. From the mundane to the controversial, there are categories of social constructs that would take a long period to absorb and understand to recognize what lasting effect they had upon early Christianity. Military, law, slavery, trade, friendships, morality, family life, economies, taxes, personal attire, entertainment, education, athletics, music, art, literature, language, and so on are just the beginning of what deeply invaded the Jewish way of life among early Christians of the first century. Fundamental assumptions about the nature of human existence translated into how people of first-century Christianity were to live their lives.
Modes of expression were downstream from cultural beliefs that formed cultures of the first century. It is not accurate to conclude from the text that a single culture was formed to define a single set of beliefs. Yet, there were forms of European, Egyptian, and Aramaic lifestyles that shaped various categories of daily activity and the presence of influences and conditions by which they existed. It can be concluded that a primitive form of civilization emerged differently than what Yahweh earlier designed by covenantal intent with the nation of Israel. After the exilic period of the Jews and their return to build the second temple, the mandate of the Jews was transformed. There was no longer to be a kingdom of priests for the nations. Instead, the nations would intersperse throughout Mediterranean territories and Palestine, while the diaspora also added to the national incoherence of Israel.
The national purpose of the twelve tribes of Israel gave way to early Christianity with its twelve apostles of the Church. As such, the book covers the framework of cultural categories that formed and supported the primitive civilization of the region with numerous counter-intuitive specifics. For example, the range and quantity of gods served and worshipped among the Greeks were accepted and assimilated into Roman society, inhabiting its various conquered regions to include Israel. The polytheism of the time was an offset to Judaic and Christian thought yet was in place to construct the framework of social existence. Gentile education brought language, entertainment, holidays, and economic life embraced by much of the people of Israel and early Christianity.
The book covers at significant depth the formation and presence of numerous religious and philosophical beliefs that existed within first-century Christianity. These beliefs translated into groups of ideas and organizations stemming from Hellenistic and Roman thought. More specifically, the distinctions between religious expression and philosophical thought were presented as a clear and altogether foreign means of social interaction with an alien understanding of the world in which they lived. Philosophy and religion among the Greeks and Romans were often intertwined, with deities worshipped involving prayers, hymns, offerings, and observances that corresponded to popular social views.
Compared to other sections of the book, the author wrote at significant length and detail about the historical religions and philosophies of the time. The range of subject matter around these topics was given roughly equal weight around the other surrounding subjects of political histories, society, culture, early Judaism, and Christianity. It is entirely fitting that the author places an emphasis upon the philosophies and religions of the Gentiles who invaded Israel to provide the relevant discussions to follow. While the text serves as a useful handbook reference to get a clear understanding of specific subject matter, it is best to first read it through from beginning to end. The book works as a dictionary of topics researched, but it is best to understand the preceding and succeeding context. Before the discussion around first-century Judaism and emergent Christianity, the cultural context and background of Roman and Greek religion and philosophy are critical to recognize and understand. Especially around the time of Christ and the later missionary journeys of the apostle Paul throughout Asia Minor.
The spiritual world of false and foreign gods was revered and celebrated by many among the Gentile nations in and around Israel. The characteristics of foreign gods were personified and anthropomorphic in nature to largely serve a functional purpose that involved bartering. Especially among the Greek gods such as Artemis, Salus, Libertas, and Victoria, in exchange for reverence, worship, and service, the gods were to bestow benevolent outcomes to the efforts of Greco-Roman occupants of the Mediterranean world. Further around ancient and foreign gods were cults formed that organized around “sacramental” activities and roles to include rituals, festivals, sacrifices, and more. The book clarifies the personal practices of Greco-Roman religion and cults formed for deeper levels of devotion. The book is organized with topical partitioning that makes it clear and easy for readers to compare for further exploration and research.
The author presents a thorough and comprehensive section about the Greco-Roman philosophies of early Christianity. Philosophies that were often stemming from individual, influential, outspoke thought figures included Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and numerous others. The book does an exceptional job at chronologically lining up what the systems of philosophical methods of understanding were to include its factions and derivative offshoots of Greco-Roman thinking. Separate from the intellectual figures were free-standing systems of belief about interpreted reality and the human condition. Namely, topics and originators of skepticism, cynicism, stoicism, epicureanism, and various others stand out in the book to situate their meaning amid the arrival and development of Christianity. The author makes it necessary to understand the extensive body of Greco-Roman schools of philosophy to recognize the background conditions in which Judaism and Christianity co-existed together.
From 620 pages of the text, the sections on early Judaism and formative Christianity equal roughly 36% of the total subject matter (220-pages between them). With the former two-thirds of the book’s material, a full and widened view of numerous historical factors set the backdrop and circumstances by which each becomes understood. Since Judaism itself extends back well beyond Alexander the Great and the conquests of Rome, the author covers these periods and earlier toward the intertestamental period.
Various ancient manuscripts accompany the historical authors of Judaism to gain a high degree of confidence about historical events, people, and developments. From the Persian period (538-332 B.C.) to the Roman period (63 B.C.), Jewish literature and authors provide source materials by which readers derive reliable historical facts around took place before the arrival of Christianity. The Jewish context within Israel is fundamental to understanding what occurred during the emergence and development of Christianity. The specific details in which Old and New Testament historical events occurred are written about the author by Jewish literature, both canonical and extra-biblical. A walkthrough of the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha works, the Dead Sea Scrolls and various writings illustrate what forms or genres of Jewish literature covered history. A history by which readers gain an understanding of what led up to the intertestamental period. The time of Judaism during the first century is interconnected with Christianity in the ancient world. It is better to understand what categories of Jewish life existed throughout Judaism during the first century and who the major groups were during the time. These groups prominent within Judaism help the reader to understand what religious organizations and figures populated the New Testament scenes given within the gospels. Such as to include Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians, Zealots, Samaritans, Essenes, and others, like the Sanhedrin and Rabbis, the prototypical organization of the Church and its roles arose to provide later and further context around roles, functions, and responsibilities. The ways in which Jewish religious authorities organized and were operated are covered in-depth down to different beliefs, whether they contradict or complement each other.
When pressing into these areas of first-century Judaism, it is informative to collect a running view of what transpired until Jewish Christianity. The author presents numerous meta details around literature, archaeological artifacts, and historical records that accompany biblical facts through the gospels and various epistles. References to visual artifacts like architectural remnants, coinage, papyri, inscriptions, tombs, and the writings of first-century authors altogether provide a composite picture of early Christianity.
Conclusion
This book serves as an ongoing standing reference for continuing biblical and theological studies. It contains highly valuable reference material with citations for research to broaden and deepen historical and technical depth. It is highly recommended in both printed and digital copies to efficiently absorb what materials were compiled here for the reader to further explore substantive meaning around early Christianity and the biblical text.
When following the apostle Paul in the book of Acts during his journeys to Asia Minor, it became apparent there were numerous synagogues he visited. Well before that, extending back into the intertestamental period and through the life of Christ, the synagogues of second-temple Israel were among Jewish populations throughout Mediterranean territories. They were gathering locations formed to provide various functions in the delivery of community services rooted in Judaism. The structure and organization of the synagogue were roughly common regardless of its geographical position as its purpose and similarities were centered on relationships among Jewish and God-fearing people. Moreover, the relationship of the Jewish members of a local synagogue appears to be deeply grounded in devotion to Yahweh according to tradition and covenant responsibilities as given by the Torah, the prophets, the writings, wisdom literature, and historical predecessors of influence within Judaism.
Functions
Activities surrounding the functional purpose of a synagogue were numerous. A synagogue operates as a Judaic community center that provides religious instruction with two areas of primary activity. Scripture reading and prayer together constituted the communicative activity between Yahweh and His people. Whether through Scripture by scrolls kept at a synagogue or from prayers, benedictions, and maledictions that were offered together before Yahweh, the Jewish people were socially together in congregations of fellowship and common belief.
Depending upon respective areas of concentration, a synagogue served as a site that operated as a Judaic community center. From the intertestamental period to first-century Judea and beyond, it was of significant influence as it continued to operate in service of Jewish communities. It served as an institution for religious instruction, it operated as a facility for meetings, and it functioned as a court for judgment and discipline. The local synagogue hosted students for academic work and school life.
Synagogue Recitals of Blessings & Woe
The Eighteen Tefillah of Shemoneh Esre (Amidah)
Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Our God and God of our fathers, God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, the great, mighty, and revered God, God Most High, who art the Creator of heaven and earth, our Shield and the Shield of our fathers, our confidence from generation to generation. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Shield of Abraham!
Thou art mighty, who bringest low the proud, strong, and He that judgeth the ruthless, that liveth forever, that raiseth the dead, that maketh the wind to blow, that sendeth down the dew; that sustaineth the living, that quickeneth the dead; in the twinkling of an eye Thou makest salvation to spring forth for us. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who quickenest the dead!
Holy art Thou and Thy Name is to be feared, and there is no God beside Thee. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the holy God!
O favor us, our Father, with knowledge from Thyself and understanding and discernment from Thy Torah. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who vouchsafest knowledge!
Cause us to return, O Lord, unto Thee, and let us return anew [in repentance] in our days as in the former time. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who delightest in repentance.
Forgive us, our Father, for we have sinned against Thee; blot out and cause our transgressions to pass from before Thine eyes, for great is Thy mercy. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who dost abundantly forgive!
Look upon our affliction and plead our cause, and redeem us for the sake of Thy Name. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the Redeemer of Israel!
Heal us, O Lord our God, from the pain of our heart; and weariness and sighing do Thou cause to pass away from us; and cause Thou to rise up healing for our wounds. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who healest the sick of Thy people Israel!
Bless for us, O Lord our God, this year for our welfare, with every kind of the produce thereof, and bring near speedily the year of the end of our redemption; and give dew and rain upon the face of the earth and satisfy the world from the treasuries of Thy goodness, and do Thou give a blessing upon the work of our hands. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who blessest the years!
Blow the great horn for our liberation, and lift a banner to gather our exiles. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who gatherest the dispersed of Thy people Israel!
Restore our judges as at the first, and our counselors as at the beginning; and reign Thou over us, Thou alone. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who lovest judgment!
For apostates let there be no hope, and the dominion of arrogance [Rome] do Thou speedily root out in our days; and let the Nazarenes [Christians] and the heretics perish as in a moment, let them be blotted out of the book of the living and let them not be written with the righteous. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who humblest the arrogant!
Towards the righteous proselytes may Thy tender mercies be stirred; and bestow a good reward upon us together with those that do Thy will. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, the trust of the righteous!
Be merciful, O Lord our God, in Thy great mercy towards Israel Thy people, and towards Jerusalem Thy City, and towards Zion the abiding place of Thy glory, and towards Thy glory, and towards Thy temple and Thy habitation, and towards the kingdom of the house of David, Thy righteous anointed one. Blessed art Thou, O God, God of David, the Builder of Jerusalem!
Hear, O Lord our God, the sound of our prayer and have mercy upon us, for a God gracious and merciful art Thou. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who hearest prayer!
Accept us, O Lord our God, and dwell in Zion; and may Thy servants serve Thee in Jerusalem. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, whom in reverent fear we serve!
We give thanks to Thee, who art the Lord our God and the God of our fathers, for all the good things, the lovingkindness, and the mercy which Thou hast wrought and done with us and with our fathers before us: and if we said, Our feet slip, Thy lovingkindness, O Lord, upheld us. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, unto whom it is good to give thanks!
Bestow Thy peace upon Israel Thy people and upon Thy city and upon Thine inheritance and bless us, all of us together. Blessed art Thou, O Lord, who makest peace!
Services
The influence a local synagogue had on Jewish life was most pronounced through its formation, activity, and how it was organized. Members of the synagogue were members of the community who also had social and market influence. Their attendance and participation had a bearing on trade, work, and daily life within the community. Their interpersonal and social obligations originated from principles taught and heard through the reading of Scripture within the local synagogue, and certainly more contemporary at the time through instruction whether oral or written. The study of Scripture and its audible intake made a lasting impression to inform beliefs and daily conduct. The absorption of God’s instructions through the Torah and other books of the Old Testament also shaped member’s views, adorations, and petitions as uttered by their prayers to Yahweh.
____________
Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 578–579.
While doing the research to understand the differences between the Jewish beliefs and practices of the Old Testament and those of the second temple period, I arrived at an area of interest that bears further exploration. As a matter of comparison between old and new covenant interpretation of Scripture, this is a useful reference between Judaism and Christianity. It so happens that from an earlier post, I also posted about the methods of interpretation from within the NT.
The Middot of Hillel
Middot in Hebrew means “measure” or “norms.” These are the seven principles, or methods used to interpret biblical meaning (OT) from Rabbi Hillel in the 1st century BC. An early form of Jewish hermeneutics around the study of Judaism that grew in number to 13 under Rabbi Ismael ben Elisha (100 A.D.) then to the 32 from Galilean Rabbi Eliezer ben Yose (150 A.D.). Beginning from the Greek influence of Hellenism upon Judaic thought, these principles remain in place for many centuries.1
The beginning seven principles by name were as follows to have a bearing upon second temple Judaism.2
Qal wahomer Inference from the less important to a more important case (lit., light to heavy), and vice versa.
Gezerah shawah Inference by verbal analogy from one verse to another; where the same words are applied to two separate laws it follows that the same regulations and applications pertain to both.
Binyan ’ab mikathub ’ehad Building up a family from a single text; when the same phrase is found in a number of passages, then a regulation found in one of them applies to all of them.
Binyan ’ab mikathub ’ehad Building up a family from two texts; a principle is deduced by relating two texts together, and the principle can then be applied to other passages.
Kelal upherat The general and the particular; a general principle may be restricted by a particularization of it in another verse, or conversely, a particular rule may be extended into a general principle.
Kayoze bo bemaqom ʾaher Something similar in another passage; a difficulty in one text may be solved by comparing it with another that has points of general (though not necessarily verbal) similarity.
Dabar halamed meʾinyano A meaning established by its context.
Mitigating Jewish Beliefs & Practices
Old Testament to second temple Judaism differences and conditions at the time of Christ. Several factors had a bearing on how OT biblical interpretation and NT authorship originated.
There was a greater adherence and devotion to the law during the second temple period as compared to the prior Old Testament era.3
During the Old Testament, and second temple periods, Jews of Judaism placed primacy of scripture upon the Torah. Jews of Christianity, during the second temple period, placed an emphasis on the Nevi’im and Ketuvim.4
From the second temple period, there was significant weight placed upon the oral law to accompany the written law as a way to govern everyday Jewish life.5 Whether for ceremonial, traditional, or “fencing” purposes, the oral law set up a type of Judaism that extended well beyond covenant intent.
During the apostolic period, there were various sects that had a bearing on the Jewish way of life and beliefs. The Essenes of Qumran, the Sadducees who controlled the Jerusalem Temple, the Pharisees with their Hasidim background, and additional sects were new or distinct in Judaism as compared to the earlier figures and groups in the Old Testament.
Since the prophets fell silent during the intertestamental period, they were replaced by the Scribes of the second temple period concerning matters of authority around the scriptures.6 Torah observance was of prominent interest to the Jews of Judaism during the second temple period which gave rise to the class of “professional scribes”. 7
_________________________
1 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 545. 2 Tosefta. Sanhedrin 7.11; Aboth de R. Nathan 37; Sifra 3a 3 Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3rdEdition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2003), 539. 4 Ibid., 543. 5 Ibid., 542. 6 Valdizan, “Historical Background of the New Testament Course Notes,” Unpublished course notes, 2018, 133. 7 Valdizan, “Historical Background of the New Testament Module 6 Lectures,” Jewish Beliefs and Practices, Part 1.
Thesis: The OT in the book of Revelation and John’s use of corresponding apocalyptic work in the book of Revelation. The following are presentation notes concerning the literary nature of the book of Revelation, not its eschatological intent.
The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation
The following is a look at second temple Jewish literature and OT material from the intertestamental period. The source material is the Hebrew Bible (the OT), Jews studying the OT of the same period, world, and cultural setting all current with John of Revelation. The Book of Revelation never uses an introductory formula to introduce OT references. John uses words and phrases from the OT into Revelation’s composition. John draws upon these words and phrases, not as quotes but as material to produce his content. The index of allusions and quotations in the Greek NT reveals that the book of Revelation contains more OT allusions than any other NT book. Yet, there is not a single quotation in the NT that references back to the OT.
John used bits and pieces to create his composition. His voice plus the phrases of meaning from the OT. It is, therefore, useful to understand what sources and OT passages that John was using. Was John using the MT or the LXX? Or both? What was the source text he used? Can the MT or LXX support or sustain what the author concludes? Was the author faithful to what the MT or the LXX says?
In the hindsight of Revelation, does John’s use of the OT articulate Jesus-influenced theology messianic interpretation that could have been obtained by using the MT or LXX prior to the first advent of Christ? Can John (or the reader of Revelation) still discern possible messianic interpretations obtained from the OT even before the Messiah arrived? If he can, then his use of the OT to produce the content of his apocalyptic work is legitimate.
John interprets the Old Testament in light of his experience with Jesus.
Ancient first-century approaches to the Bible should be included in hermeneutical methodologies. Old Testament content is repurposed and is legitimate.
John’s preference for literature was the prophets and poetic works (worship literature).
The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and the Revelation of St. John
Three decades after DSS discoveries. Beale writes of John’s use of the Old Testament by categorizing his use of ancient scripture.
Categories & Methods of Interpretation
Segmentation: Segments of the OT are used as literary prototypes. John models his material after patterns he sees in the OT. He follows sequence or structure to build his content. Or “clusters” of allusions in the OT to use them in sections of Revelation. Reference Daniel 2 and 7 as examples from Revelation 13 and 17.
Thematic: The thematic use of the OT. The divine warrior, earthly cataclysm, eclipses, etc., are directed to apocalyptic messaging in the Revelation to produce content.
Analogical: The analogical use of the OT is used to repurpose well-known persons, places, and events to produce or illustrate imagery by analogy. Such as the Exodus plagues (Rev 8:6-12; the seven trumpets, Rev 16:2-13; the seven bowls) to illustrate the analogical use of the OT.
Universal: The universalization of OT application of what occurred to Israel to the rest of the world. The “Kingdom of Priests” principle concerning the Hebrews became applied to the Church (e.g., Rev 5:9-10). Material meant for Israel becomes universally applied to the Gentiles.
Informality: Informal direct prophetic fulfillment where John, the author of Revelation, sees the fulfillment of OT passages in Jesus or His return by implication and inference. For example, the allusion of Zechariah 12:10 concerns Rev 1:7, where “those whom they have pierced” is not a word-for-word reference but by palpable and undeniable inference around messianic fulfillment.
Typological: A non-verbal prophecy or foreshadowing of something to come. Present within the literature are synonyms that bear the concept of resemblance and similarity. A general definition identifies a biblical event, person, or institution that serves as an example or pattern for other events, persons, or institutions (Baker). Typological relationships exist between events, persons, or institutions that, through divine inspiration, foreshadow later patterns or specific events and conditions that happen later within salvation history. New Testament writers use typologies. —Compare Isaiah 22:22 with Rev 3:7b concerning the key of David as a foreshadow to the keys of Death and Hades (Rev 1:18). These two are linked together; the inference is that Jesus holds power over salvation and judgment since it comes through the line of David. David foreshadowed another king to come: Jesus. As a typology, John uses David as a foreshadow of Jesus in his messianic kingship, who has control over a kingdom.
Inversion: Some allusions are contradictory to the OT contextual meaning, but it’s a surface observation. Upon closer inspection, this category does not work. To see John is doing something subtle and unique. For example, some passages in Isaiah show Gentiles bowing down before Israel to recognize their elect status before YHWH (Isaiah 45:14, Isaiah 49:23, compared to Revelation 3:9). Revelation 3:9 inverts the imagery to concern the Church as to the Jews of Israel.
Style: The perceived imprecise use of the Greek language involved solecisms (grammatical mistakes) throughout the Revelation. John intentionally used Greek “errors” in the language to express his Semitic mind more precisely. They were deliberate efforts to intentionally say something specific in the way it is expressed in Hebrew. Solecisms are littered throughout the Revelation to make the reader look and understand what is occurring from the OT.
______________________
Michael Heiser, “Introducing The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation” (podcast), December 1st, 2020, accessed April 23rd, 2021, https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-352-introducing-the-old-testament-in-the-book-of-revelation/
G.K. Beale, “The Use of Daniel in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and in the Revelation of St. John” (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2010)
Steve Moyise, “The Old Testament in the Book of Revelation”, The Library of New Testament Studies, (London, UK: T&T Clark Publishing, 2014)
In an effort to trace the history of animosity between the Jews and Samaritans, I acknowledge the various alternatives that exist throughout primary and secondary sources. The Jews of ancient Israel did not view the Samaritans as Jewish. Due to their historical lineage and origination from Assyria during and after Israel’s captivity from 722BC and thereafter, Assyrian males intermarried with Jewish women to produce half-gentile and half-jew people. The seed and offspring of the Samaritan people became inhabitants of the Northern region of Israel known as Samaria. They became occupants of the area known by the people of Judea as the Samaritans.
Intuitively, because of genealogical baggage, it appears to me that there was never a complete unity between the people of Judea and Samaria (i.e., the Samaritans) to begin a split. They were distinct people by both bloodline and heritage separate through Old Testament and New Testament history. In addition to a commonly inherited yet partial set of tribal genetics, there were shared histories about the identity of God, the patriarchs, and various other beliefs. While there were numerous distinctions about Samaritan ideas and beliefs, they all contributed to their state of separation from the Jewish people of Judea.
The views of the Samaritans about scripture, the prophets, worship, geographical inheritance, the temple, sacrifices to God, the priesthood, and others all contributed to their separation from the Jewish people. Regional conflicts that occurred between the Seleucids and the Ptolemy dynasties of Egypt also set the conditions by which their chosen alliances came into opposition or contradiction to the interests of Judea. There weren’t just growing differences in opinion about the facts and nature of God’s relationship with His people. The was growing isolation between Judea and Samaria that formed into animosity during the New Testament period.
It appears that the Samaritans took up residence in the land of Canaan after the exile and became more than ethnic rivals. They brought with them from the North an ideology that accompanied their covenant convictions. It would appear that the separation of thought from Scripture begins at the time of Jacob and extends through David, the prophets, and so forth. I suspect their objections somewhat correlate to the claims between Esau and Jacob since they only recognize or accept the Pentateuch from their Abrahamic ancestry.
Notice also that Jesus used the phrase “a certain Samaritan” in His parable of the Good Samaritan. The “certain” is an indefinite pronoun that could also mean “just any Samaritan who was someone.” This term appears within the root Masoretic text and gets translated to KJV and NKJV, but not NASB or ESV. NLT renders “despised” Samaritan, which is nowhere from the root manuscript. My point is that Jesus spoke His parable to illustrate the necessary love of this Samaritan, who was the neighbor of the Scribe of the law who asked, “who is my neighbor?” The inference was, between Jew and Samaritan, to do likewise and that it was commanded in the law to love YHWH as the Shema proclaims. Yet also of neighbors between the North and South whether nearby, remote, or distant.
I also think it was entirely significant that Jesus revealed that He is the Messiah through a Samaritan woman. This one is probably among my favorite encounters with Jesus. He made known to the public that He is the Messiah, our Christ, through a Samaritan woman. And that is such a beautiful and telling perspective. At least in terms of why He made that choice and what it meant concerning His intentions.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” / Hellenic (Rom 1:16). The sequence of Jesus’s instructions was also significant in spreading the gospel to the Gentile world in stages. The region of Samaria and its occupants was a bridge between the Jewish and Gentile worlds where the new covenant would become known, accepted, and loved.
If one were to zero in on what the Samaritans objected to, there’s a period entitled, “The Era of Disfavor.” Where they claim the beginning of animosity was from the transfer of worship from Shechem to Shiloh. The dispute began from that point, in their view, which gave rise to growing division and opposition. The fact they believed Yahweh should be worshiped in Shechem and not Jerusalem comports with their view about the legitimacy of David and the whole narrative about the selection of the ancient city of Jebus to include the place and purpose of Mt Zion. The theology of the Samaritans to include the Memar Marqah and others, I would imagine originates from tradition prior to the 4th century. It significantly diverges from the course of Hebrew history, theology, and canon.
It intuitively seems that the Samaritans were a people of opposition while the Sadducees were themselves alienated from the common people of Judea also. Not out of resentment for wrong choices, but simply by a difference of conviction about who they were as people before Yahweh. From that flowed their perspectives about heritage, geography, the temple, and worship that inevitably and often fell into contradiction without long-lasting or meaningful reconciliation until many converted through the gospel. Numerous others migrated to Islam in the middle ages.
This week’s reading through 1st and 2nd Maccabees often had me step back to think about what I just read. Throughout the week, I shared some of the details about events that transpired in both books. The overall pattern of conflict resolution and individual behavior among leadership figures was especially repugnant compared to Western society today. Governments, political strife, and military encounters were historically and utterly corrupt and profane in the worst sense of meaning or semantic range. The fullest reach of depravity in a very short concentration of time leaves the reader to ask how conditions and the extent of evil could have been any worse so far distant from the comparative events of Genesis six.
As compared to the Old Testament and New Testament, the density of cross-national slaughter appears hyper-elevated around the events within this time recounted in the Apocrypha. The constant and at times accelerated rate of destruction and death leaves one to wonder how various regions’ birth rates could keep up. Especially at the rate by which soldiers and mercenaries were subdued in conflict after conflict. Both in Josephus and Maccabees’ written accounts of killed were ten thousand here, then 60,000 there, again and again, 20,000, 80,000, 120,000, and lather, rinse, repeat on a cycle. On and on and on, the regions were at war against each other and the people of YHWH.
These were not just stories we read. These were stories about real people who lived daily lives between the Old and New Testaments. At a time when the prophets fell silent, there was no prophetic voice other than Scripture and the arrival of Christ as prophesied in Old Testament literary work. Each culture and society under trauma by siege, physical and spiritual oppression, persistent violence, starvation, enslavement, torture, and perpetual subjugation.
While the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees together provide historical details about events during the intertestamental period, there are a number of similar motifs, terms, and conditions that appear in the writings at that time. Common OT and NT use of terms such as “Covenant,” “Sackcloth,” “Sinner,” “Sacrifice,” “Offering,” and “Plunder,” appears both across both covenants and each one is unique to each side of the intertestamental period. Israel and Jerusalem were ever surrounded by hostile nations or temporary allies that really never experienced an extended period of stability. Whether from the Assyrians to the North, Egyptians to the South, Rome, Greece, Sparta, Idumea, Persia, and other surrounding adversaries, the underlying strain of hostilities stemmed from the four generals who spawned after the death of Alexander the Great during his campaign of imperial endeavor.
The prophecies of Daniel have an explanatory power to fully grasp what was to occur in the distant future during the time of the Maccabees. Specifically, the depth and range of havoc and devastation the Ptolemy and Seleucid dynasties placed upon the intertestamental world. Right before the birth of Christ, these events and conditions characterized by the presence of priests, kings, traditions, paganism, religious observances, festivals, betrayal, treaties, and so much strife were to inevitably converge to a time unlike any before it.
As a sort of anchor, it seemed necessary for me to think back about what had occurred to the table of nations from Genesis 10 all the way to the arrival of the Kingdom of God through Christ’s crowning achievement at the cross. I had to revert to my overall biblical worldview.
Another example was back during the Canaan conquest, as Moses and Joshua’s people were led to their appointed land. The loss of life as a percentage (though necessary) was enormous. The later ongoing enmity between ancient surrounding nations, such as Edom, Moab, Egypt, Assyria, and Persia, was self-inherent while an evil spiritual bearing was present and in full force. Remember in Daniel when the archangel Michael was in conflict with the princes of Persia and Greece? The message correlated to this prophesied time recounted 2 Maccabees.
“Then he said, “Do you know why I have come to you? Now I must return to fight against the prince of Persia, and when I am through with him, the prince of Greece will come. 21 But I am to tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth. There is no one with me who contends against these princes except Michael, your prince (Dan 10:20-21).The prince, in this sense, from the root text, references a supernatural being. And I strongly suspect applies to other nations, too.
Who was Michael, the archangel? Who were the “princes” he fought? What were they doing and why? Why was Michael the prince of Israel to defend them? It without question appears to me that the underlying causality was of darkness upon humanity. With humanity’s participation, the evil governance and presence of the fallen angels were given to the disinherited nations scattered in Genesis 11. To me, it is a plausible theological explanation of why and how so much evil and destruction permeated the region across generations BECAUSE THEY WERE AND ARE STILL ACTIVE. More specifically, either by direct or indirect judgment as prophesied by Daniel or through their presence and struggle for control and power to serve their interests in opposition to the “Kingdom of Priests” then and the Kingdom of God now.
Recall in 2 Maccabees the presence of angelic figures that fought for the people of YHWH? It’s the same principle, where the adversaries were not just opposing human forces, but what was behind them. Through them, among them, and upon them to perpetuate the sovereign will of the Most-High.
There were numerous outcomes to the transition from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. All largely magnified during the intertestamental period. A series of overlapping and concurrent losses represented both pronounced and fundamental changes in the relationship between God and His chosen people.
Five Major Losses of the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem
1.) Loss of Land 2.) Loss of the Monarchy 3.) Loss of the Temple and God’s Presence 4.) Loss of the Mother Tongue 5.) Loss of Prophetic Revelation
Political, Social, and Geographic
The Jews’ loss of their treasured land of possession to the Hellenists, Romans, Syrians, and Egyptians over their struggles to maintain religious autonomy and regain national sovereignty came with significant and long-term turmoil. With the ongoing occupation and hostilities from foreign nations, there was internal strife between the ruling classes of ancient Israel. The animosity between Aristobulus and Hyrcanus to attain a lasting monarchy translated to alliances among the Pharisees and Sadducees with the backing of social classes. Pharisees were of authority among the common people, whereas Sadducees were upper the aristocratic and priestly class. The struggle between the Hasmonean and the Sadducean parties led to the formation of relationships with foreign nations and leaders to advance internal political causes to obtain power and government control over the priesthood, the land, and religious interests of the Jewish people.
The presence of God never really returned after Solomon’s temple, as made evident by the vision of Ezekiel on the bank of the Chebar River. While the prophet witnessed the spiritual departure of God’s glory from the first temple, he was in captivity in Babylon. Not only were the people of Judah placed into exile, but YHWH had left the temple without any hope of a return to the way things were within the old covenant. Both prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel recorded YHWH’s intent to bring a new covenant (Ezek 11:19, Ezek 36:26, Jer 31:33, Heb 8:10). Until then, the people of Israel were to settle in Babylon for 70 years until their release to Jerusalem and beyond numerous Mediterranean territories. The building of the second temple restored a central location of worship and service, while synagogues served the need of Jewish peoples scattered abroad.
The Jewish solution to all of the strife, oppression, and hardship was a foretold Messiah who would deliver the people to a kind of freedom and prosperity assumed from Scripture. During their time of difficulty, there was an expectation of politically and socially restorative action where the Messiah would be their King and Prophet to bring them to a kingdom of Israel that served their interests.
Religious, Literary, and Cultural
The changes imposed upon the intertestamental Jewish people were comprehensive. The momentum of changes began earlier in Israel’s history around its succession of corrupt kings and its captivity to Assyria and Babylonia centuries before the second temple period. The scattering of the Jewish peoples brought further hardships upon religious and cultural practices that negatively impacted its language, lifestyle, and worship. Whether by security reasons, economic necessity, or enslavement, Jews settled across Mediterranean coastal territories such as Asia Minor, Antioch, Alexandria, Carthage, Cypress, and Rome. They dispersed West to form communities to keep hold of their homogenous identity. Outside Israel and Jerusalem, leadership centered around local synagogues and oral traditions complimentary to the writings of the law and the prophets.
By occupying foreign territories, intertestamental Jews faced significant changes around their indigent verbal and written language. As the people of Israel returned from Babylon, they essentially adopted the Aramaic language. Only to be faced with the dominant Greek language of imperial Greek Hellenization, Israel faced further dilution of social use of their language. Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew were disparately in use among the various pagan territories, so preserving the Hebrew language was often a product of religious and elementary education within the home.1 Further loss of Jewish interest around literary work was mitigated by translation efforts, such as the Old Testament into Greek, by the 70 (LXX) commission of Ptolemy. Along with the absence of prophetic guidance during the intertestamental period, apocalyptic or apocryphal writings were produced for historical and religious value.
Scribes and priests were the wise men who came to replace the prophets. Scholars in the sacred writings were considered among the scribes who carried authority and interpretive weight.2 Oral law and the apocalyptic literature provided divine guidance and interpretation of Scripture during the time of prophetic silence.3
____________________________
1. Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 112. 2. Ibid, 401. 3. J. Julius Scott Jr., Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000), 112.
With the Hellenization of numerous territories throughout the Mediterranean world, ancient Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Northern Regions of Israel were immersed in Greek culture and philosophical thought. Widespread was Greek philosophy’s influence in places such as Decapolis, Antioch, and beyond Asia Minor. Even to the extent of Alexandria, Egypt, where Judeaus Philo originated, one could say that what Hellenization was to Judaism is what Gnosticism became to Christianity.1 The influence of Greek philosophical thought upon Judaism was largely speculative, and it touched on every area of Jewish life. More specifically, lifestyle, worldview, religion, ethics, social and interpersonal settings, a focus on individualism became a way to “help” humanity2 from a humanistic standpoint.
Introduction
An overall comparison to the revealed truth of Scripture suggests opposing intentionality. The sharp contrast between Hellenistic philosophical schools and centuries of covenantal life among Jews introduced harmful speculations (2 Tim 2:23). Naturalistic observations and presuppositions brought about “reasoned” conclusions, which also guided conduct, thought, and communication. Philo himself formed an allegorical and symbolic hermeneutic to selectively harmonize the Mosaic covenant with Greek philosophy.
As Philo was a Hellenized Jew, he embraced some facets of Greek culture and its worldview that sought to “teach people how to live.” 2 From foundations of lifestyle to soul-care, Greek philosophy emerged as a religion that produced beliefs and practices as a hollow counterfeit to what Yahweh instructed of the Jews. Caesar Augustus intended to bring Greek philosophy and culture to the “barbarian people” of Israel.3 An early form of imperialism was a leavening of religious and social life within Jewish society.
With Greek philosophy and culture exported to Eastern Mediterranean areas, new and different ideas were lived out and advocated by individuals and communities to affect religious, political, social, and civic life. Together they were a portable method of exported assimilation. It was a self-contradictory people-centered way of reason about the nature of existence, creation, and humanity’s purpose. Hellenization and Greek philosophy had a corrosive and corruptive influence on the Judaic way of life. It held itself out as a symbiosis, yet it was a dilution against Jewish covenantal obligations.
The further in time one goes in the examination of surrounding Hellenization and Greek culture, the emergence of Gnosticism first appear among Christian and Jewish sects. As a form of heretical influence upon the Church and early believers in Christ, it has its roots from within Greek philosophy and religion.
The Nag Hammadi Library
According to Wikipedia, Nag Hammadi (/ˌnɑːɡ həˈmɑːdi/ NAHG hə-MAH-dee; Arabic: نجع حمادى Najʿ Ḥammādī) is a city in Egypt. It is located on the west bank of the Nile river in the Qena Governorate, about 50 miles north-west of Luxor. It had a population of close to 43,000 as of 2007. The Nag Hammadi Library is a collection of writings that were discovered and gave further insights into early Christianity and Gnosticism.
Valentinian Exposition (including On Anointing, On Baptism, and On the Eucharist)
Catechism?
Valentinian
XI,3 45,1–69,20
Allogenes
Apocalypse
Sethian—Non-Christian
XI,4 69,21–72,33
Hypsiphrone
Apocalypse?
XII,1 15,1–34,28
Sentences of Sextus
Wisdom Sayings
Non-Gnostic
XII,2 53,19–60,30
Gospel of Truth
(See I,3)
XIII,3
Fragments
XIII,1 35,1–50,24
Trimorphic Protennoia
Revelation Discourse
Sethian
XIII,2 50,25–34
On the Origin of the World
(See II,5)
NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
The Berlin Gnostic Codex is closely related and contains the following:
Number of Codex, Tractate, Page, and Lines
Name of Tractate
Literary Form
Affiliations
BG 8502,1 7,1–19,5
Gospel of Mary
Resurrection Gospel/Dialogue and Revelation Discourse
BG 8502,2 19,6–77,7
Apocryphon of John
(See II,1)
BG 8502,3 77,8–127,12
Sophia of Jesus Christ
(See III,4)
BG 8502,4 128,1–141,7
Acts of Peter
Acts
NAG HAMMADI LIBRARY
“The charts above list all of the tractates in the Nag Hammadi Library, with some indication of literary and doctrinal affinities. The Nag Hammadi documents are cited by codex number (in Roman numeral), tractate number in the codex (Arabic numeral), page, and line numbers of the manuscript.
The Gospel of Thomas is a collection of 112 to 118 (according to different editions) sayings attributed to Jesus, some of which were already known in Greek from a collection in the Oxyrhynchus Papyri. The Gospel of Thomas is perhaps the earliest of the new texts in the collection and demonstrates the existence of collections of sayings of Jesus (a sayings gospel) in the early church. It has a strong encratite or ascetic tone but otherwise is not so pronouncedly Gnostic, although clearly consistent with Gnostic understandings. Although scholarly opinion seems to incline toward emphasizing the extent of the independence of the Gospel of Thomas from the Synoptic Gospels, the age and originality of its individual sayings in relation to the canonical Gospels are much debated.
The Gospel of Truth may be identified with a work of that name that Irenaeus attributes to the followers of Valentinus (Against Heresies 3.11.9). It is not properly a “Gospel,” but a meditation on the truth of redemption. Its theme is that the human state is ignorance, and salvation is by the knowledge imparted by Jesus.
The Gospel of Philip is another sayings or discourse gospel, also from Valentinian circles. It offers information on liturgical practices.
The Apocryphon of John appears to have been one of the most popular of the Gnostic works, for three copies of it were found at Nag Hammadi and one other was previously known. It provides a close parallel to the Gnostic system described in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.29.
The Epistle to Rheginus, On the Resurrection, sets forth a position close to that of the orthodox in terminology but emphasizes a resurrection of the soul.
The Apocryphon of James, like many documents in the collection, is a post-resurrection revelation of Jesus. He gives blessings and woes through Peter and James. It is argued that the work derives from a sayings collection independent of the New Testament.
The Hypostasis of the Archons describes the efforts of the world rulers to deceive humankind in Genesis 1–6. The myth is close to that of the Ophites or Sethians in Irenaeus, Against Heresies 1.30.
The Tripartite Tractate is the most ambitious and comprehensive theological undertaking in the Nag Hammadi corpus. It has points of contact with the Valentinian teacher Heracleon and attempts to present Gnostic teaching, in response to orthodox criticism, in a way more acceptable to the great church.
Eugnostos the Blessed and The Sophia of Jesus Christ are two versions of the same document, the former a letter by a teacher to his disciples and the latter a revelation discourse of Jesus to his followers. The former is important as a non-Christian form of Gnosticism whereas the latter is a Christianized version of the same.
These writings give us more of the inner religious spirit of Gnosticism, whereas the heresiologists concentrated on the bizarre and on the outer structure of the Gnostic systems. Otherwise, the new finds correspond to the picture given by the Christian authors in its main outlines. The non-Christian nature of many tenets of Gnosticism is evident, although it attached itself to the Christian revelation. The concern with the Old Testament points to an area of proximity to Judaism if not to a specifically Jewish origin.” 4
Citations
1 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 308. 2 Ibid, 323. 3 Aaron Valdizan, Historical Background of the New Testament Course Notes, (Unpublished Course Notes, The Master’s University, 2018), 69 4 Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, Third Edition. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003), 305–306.
