The Great Courses
Professor Ehrman
The Historical Jesus – Lecture 12 Jesus in His Context
The history of Palestine was a story of war and foreign domination. The Romans took over Israel about 60 years before Jesus was born. Different forms of Judaism had emerged too, though Jesus himself was aligned with no sect, and had deep differences with at least some.
Professor Ehrman
Criterion: Contextual Credibility
Pull Jesus out of context and misunderstandings arise.
The Kingdom of Israel (in the north) was overthrown by the Assyria Empire, 721 B.C.
The Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians (General/King Nebuchadnezzar), 587-586 B.C.; Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, and there was the Babylonian Exile.
The Babylonian Empire was overrun by the Persians, fifty years later, circa 536 B.C. and the Babylonian Exile was over, but Judah still reported to Persia.
Another Temple was built.
The Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, 334 B.C. Judea fell under the rule of Ptolemy I.
Syria wrested control of Palestine in 198 B.C.
Steefen
All of this antagonized Judaism’s notion of God.
Pick up at 6:26.
Syrian monarch Antiochus IV/Epiphanes (d. 163 B.C.) requested his subjects to adopt Hellenistic ways, but a revolt broke out resulting in the Maccabean Revolt (167 to 160 BCE).
Lecture 13. Jesus and Roman Rule
Under Roman rule, some Jews embraced convictions that modern scholars group under the label “apocalypticism.” According to this set of beliefs, God would soon smash the forces of evil and usher the chosen people into the divine kingdom. Did Jesus himself proclaim some such views?
Steefen said
Under Roman rule, some Jews embraced convictions that modern scholars group under the label “apocalypticism.” According to this set of beliefs, God would soon smash the forces of evil and usher the chosen people into the divine kingdom. Did Jesus himself proclaim some such views?
I would say yes, but what does it mean exactly ‘ God would soon smash‘ and ‘chosen people into the divine kingdom.‘ ?
Did the God will smash mean, to Jesus, some magical phenomena and/or non-human being appearing possibly on clouds who can somehow perform judgement on entire world population in matter or days or weeks or months?
Dr Ehrman tends to think yes, I personally doubt that , too far fetched, not really in keeping with prior scripture and general concepts of Jewish concept of God’s work in history.
Did the chosen people enter divine kingdom mean, to Jesus, a non-natural state of zero disease, zero physical deaths, no aging (?), zero natural disaster fires floods earthquakes, no one ever hates or dislikes anyone else?
Dr Ehrman again tends to think yes, again I doubt that , too far fetched for much same reasons as above
tompicard
Did the God will smash mean, to Jesus, some magical phenomena and/or non-human being appearing possibly on clouds who can somehow perform judgement on entire world population in matter or days or weeks or months?
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Rome needed to be charged with a crime of evil before any punishment of smash was to be applied.
The Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar has no crime of evil I can see the client-knigdom of Iudea/Judea bringing against it.
I would say the same for Tiberius Caesar.
So what is John the Baptist and Jesus talking about?
If John the Baptist and Jesus are seeing the major problems with Caligula and the major problems with the Roman governors of the 50s and 60s, then there is plausibility.
While the Roman Empire may seem like the world to citizens of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee, there were other empires on Earth at that time. Just because the Hebrews had a theological crisis does not mean their sky was falling down needed to be applied to their benevolent overlords and unassociated peoples. John the Baptist and Jesus did not know global affairs but they falsely preached global justice and futurism.
An apocalyptic prophet was, by necessity, a false prophet.
= = =
The whole world was not against Roman Palestine.
Second, the prophecies of Zechariah about Jerusalem being a city of inspiration is differ4ent from prophecies of an apocalypse and global judgment.
I agree with you, stopping life globally to judge all individuals fit for entering a new global culture is erroneous thinking.
The Kingdom of Israel (in the north) was overthrown by the Assyria Empire, 721 B.C.
The Kingdom of Judah was conquered by the Babylonians (General/King Nebuchadnezzar), 587-586 B.C.; Solomon’s Temple was destroyed, and there was the Babylonian Exile.
The Babylonian Empire was overrun by the Persians, fifty years later, circa 536 B.C. and the Babylonian Exile was over, but Judah still reported to Persia.
Another Temple was built.
The Persian Empire was conquered by Alexander the Great, 334 B.C. Judea fell under the rule of Ptolemy I.
Syria wrested control of Palestine in 198 B.C.
Syrian monarch Antiochus IV/Epiphanes (d. 163 B.C.) requested his subjects to adopt Hellenistic ways, but a revolt broke out resulting in the Maccabean Revolt (167 to 160 BCE).
Jerusalem was under siege by Pompey the Great (63 B.C.E.). This ended Jewish independence and incorporated Judea into the Roman Republic.
This was not an independent act of evil by Rome. Judea brought Rome into its domestic affairs. Apocalypticism may say it is against evil but it also includes regret for Judea inviting Rome into affairs.
Steefen said
. . . , the prophecies of Zechariah about Jerusalem being a city of inspiration is differ4ent from prophecies of an apocalypse and global judgment.
Do you infer that (the above) from :
words you believe correctly attributed to Jesus and/or John the Baptist (if so I would appreciate your telling the specific verses and why you see the distinction)
or
from your general point of view regarding the apocalyptic view ?
My personal view is that unless we can prove otherwise, it is best to consider Jesus/Johns views to be general extension of Zechariah’s, though I think Bart would concur with you.
tompicard
Do you infer that (the above) from :
words you believe correctly attributed to Jesus and/or John the Baptist (if so I would appreciate your telling the specific verses and why you see the distinction)
or
from your general point of view regarding the apocalyptic view?
Steefen
I’m just reading the Bible. Zechariah does not seem to be an apocalyptic prophet to me when he is describing Jerusalem as a destination.
tompicard
It is best to consider Jesus/Johns views to be general extension of Zechariah’s.
Steefen
Zealot rebels, Jewish Revolt, Jewish Civil War, Destruction of the Temple, Destruction of Jerusalem is not an extension of the hopeful future described by Zechariah.
Robert said
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist, said
… If John the Baptist and Jesus are seeing the major problems with Caligula and the major problems with the Roman governors of the 50s and 60s, then there is plausibility. …
The apocalyptic beliefs and worldview did not begin in the 40-60s against Rome. Such were already apparent in the book of Daniel and continued in the writings found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The gospels were written after Caligula. The gospels were written after the major problems with the Roman governors of the 50s and 60s.
Dating of the Book of Daniel
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Further evidence of the book’s date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Daniel did see Rome as an evil. Before Rome could be seen as an evil for Jerusalem, it needs to see Rome as a blessing bringing forth Herod the Great who did not see Rome as evil.
1. Herod was a king before the Jews had no king
2. Herod was the King of the Jews (near and far) and his temple increased pilgrimage of diaspora Jews to Jerusalem
3. Herod was a patron to near and far Jews
4. Jews had the best of the science of architecture because Herod adopted the architecture (math and science) of the Roman Empire
5. Jews had political stability within the empire-client kingdom political system
So, no, Daniel does not get credit from me that he was referring to Rome.
Chapters ** you do not have permission to see this link ** are mystical, apocalyptic visions that relate to the four powerful kingdoms that had persecuted the Jewish people:
** you do not have permission to see this link **,
** you do not have permission to see this link **,
** you do not have permission to see this link **, and
** you do not have permission to see this link **.
The book describes events that occurred to the period of ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
Wikipedia entry for Darius the Mede:
Medes and the fall of Babylon
The ** you do not have permission to see this link **.
= = =
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Sorry, Robert, you are in error and a victim of Christian revisionism of history.
The majority of “critical scholars” are so quick to take away knowing the future for years forward from Jesus but so quick to give knowing the future hundreds of years into the future to Daniel; yet, Daniel does not see the material, political, and spiritual riches of Jerusalem under Herod the Great.
Christian Revisionists join Babylonia and Media to reduce the four kingdoms to three so they can tack on Rome.
= = =
The case of Rome as an evil has not been established before Caligula.
Robert and the Christian Revisionists “majority of critical scholars” have not made a case that the Dead Sea Scrolls, the biblical John the Baptist, and the biblical Jesus described the evils of Rome.
Even if one wants to say the evil before Caligula was taking kings away from Judea, that needs support that it was not Judea’s own succession failure–not Rome’s evil. If Herod the Great had listened to Caesar Augustus and not killed his successor son, the son who would have been king with competence would have prevented the son who was incompetent as king.
So, no, Rome is not the fourth evil empire. The New Testament is pro-Roman, so Rome is not the fourth evil empire. You cannot have it both ways.
Steefen said
Syrian monarch Antiochus IV/Epiphanes (d. 163 B.C.) requested his subjects to adopt Hellenistic ways, but a revolt broke out resulting in the Maccabean Revolt (167 to 160 BCE).Lecture 13. Jesus and Roman Rule
Under Roman rule, some Jews embraced convictions that modern scholars group under the label “apocalypticism.” According to this set of beliefs, God would soon smash the forces of evil and usher the chosen people into the divine kingdom. Did Jesus himself proclaim some such views?
The history of Palestine at the time of the first century would have been, up to that point, the history of foreign subjugation. The consequences of foreign subjugation was the formation of Jewish sects (that did not comprise the majority of the Jewish population).
Sects: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes (the apocalypse is imminent), and the Fourth Philosophy (Israel self-determination, by force, if necessary)
The Roman Empire had provinces which were ruled by either Roman aristocrats or by local aristocrats, client kings. The governors and client kings needed to raise revenues and keep the peace.
The Roman soldiers were in Syria. The Roman governor had soldiers.
The taxes on Judea or Galilee were not out of line with the taxes paid by other Roman provinces. (Taxes were about 12 or 13%, but on top of their own Temple taxes, close to a total of 33%, Ehrman says–hm, Temple Tax was as expensive as taxes to the Empire. 33% minus 13% = 20%)
The Jews did not have to provide soldiers to the Empire as other provinces did.
God gave us this land, why are we paying taxes to the Roman Empire was the gripe of some Jews.
Pick up at 11:19
Bart
The Romans provided infrastructure and protection from hostilities from the east.
Jewish aristocracy had reason to favor Roman administration of Palestine.
Five Ways Some Jews Resisted Roman Rule
1) Silent Protests (ex. during Passover–God freed us from Egypt w/ Moses: God will free us from Rome w/ the Messiah)
Romans knew this.
2) Non-violent Protests. Romans would offend the Jews and the Jews would respond, like with a sit-in
3) Armed Revolt/Violent Insurrections (ex. zealots took control of Jerusalem/Civil War)
4) Religious Response (ex. prophets saying God would intervene and remove the Romans, Theudas and Moses; The Egyptian and the Battle of Jericho; John the Baptist)
Romans did not like prophets who said God was going to disrupt the Roman Empire’s control of its provinces.
5) Religious Ideology – Apocalypticism; Daniel, Dead Sea Scrolls
a) dualists: good and evil; two ages, the present age and the future age
b) pessimism
c) god would intervene, there would be a judgment, and god’s good kingdom would be manifested
d) the apocalypse and its judgment is imminent
Next: Lecture 14: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Looking forward, this thread will probably end after Lecture 17
Lecture 15: The Apocalyptic Teachings of Jesus
Lecture 16: Other Teachings of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
Lecture 17: The Deeds of Jesus in their Apocalyptic Context
Daniel is not a response to Roman administration.
The most obvious conclusion would be that the Book of Daniel was written at the time of the profanation of the Temple by Antiochus IV, during the Maccabean revolt which that sacrilege provoked. That would explain why the author is not very precise about sixth century events, why he is so precise about the time of Antiochus, and why he was never counted among the prophets. What other evidence is there to support such a conclusion, apart from the fact that it answers our questions so neatly?
First, stories about Daniel had circulated before the time of Antiochus and had long been used to encourage faithful obedience to and observance of Jewish law. However, all the stories of the book of Daniel relate directly to the persecution under Antiochus: loyalty to the Jewish food laws and the refusal to worship images of other gods had become a question of life and death in Antiochus’ crisis-ridden empire.
Second, the name Nebuchadnezzar contains a disguised reference to Antiochus to those acquainted with Hebrew numbering. The Babylonian king of 605 – 562 BCE was in fact called nabu-kuddurri-usur which should be transliterated into Hebrew script as NeuchadRezzar (as it is in eg. ** you do not have permission to see this link **). The change of that one letter gives this name the same numerical value in Hebrew (which had no separate numbers and so used letters to represent numbers) as the name Antiochus Epiphanes. This is too coincidental to be accidental and too contrived to be miraculous.
Thirdly, the whole genre of Apocalyptic literature which Daniel represents only developed during the period of crisis and persecution under Antiochus. The few examples of Apocalyptic in the Old Testament are all late, and the popularity of Apocalyptic in the New Testament is indication that it was a relatively new and popular literary form around the time of Jesus.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BCE biblical apocalypse with an ostensible 6th century setting, combining a prophecy of history with an eschatology (a portrayal of end times) both cosmic in scope and political in focus. It gives “an account of the activities and visions of Daniel, a noble Jew exiled at Babylon”, and its message is that just as the God of Israel saves Daniel from his enemies, so he would save all Israel in their present oppression.
Dating
The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of Syria and oppressor of the Jews, but not in its prediction of his death: the author seems to know about Antiochus’ two campaigns in Egypt (169 and 167 BCE), the desecration of the Temple (the “abomination of desolation”), and the fortification of the Akra (a fortress built inside Jerusalem), but he seems to know nothing about the reconstruction of the Temple or about the actual circumstances of Antiochus’ death in late 164 BCE. Chapters 10–12 must therefore have been written between 167 and 164 BCE. There is no evidence of a significant time lapse between those chapters and chapters 8 and 9, and chapter 7 may have been written just a few months earlier again.
Further evidence of the book’s date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible’s canon of the prophets, which was closed around 200 BCE, and the Wisdom of Sirach, a work dating from around 180 BCE, draws on almost every book of the Old Testament except Daniel, leading scholars to suppose that its author was unaware of it. Daniel is, however, quoted in a section of the Sibylline Oracles commonly dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and was popular at Qumran at much the same time, suggesting that it was known from the middle of that century.
Wikipedia, “Book of Daniel” entry
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Rome enters Jewish history with Pompey the Great’s campaign east (63 BCE).
Lecture 14: Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet
Steefen
Apocalypticism is ethnocentric. The Hebrew God would overthrow anything that does not bring political independence and peace to the Hebrews.
Bart
This Kingdom of God would arrive only after a massive destruction of the government and institutions of this evil age.
Steefen
The massive destruction happened with the Tribulation of the Jewish Civil War and the Jewish Revolt.
= = =
Bart
People would be raised from the dead so they could not escape judgment.
Jesus did hold to some of the apocalyptic views of the Essenes.
Schweitzer’s the Quest of the Historical Jesus showed that up to the time of the writing of that book, scholars failed to see Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.
Schweitzer’s reconstruction of the Life of Jesus is incorrect but his overarching points that Jesus must be situated in 1st century Palestine and that Jesus was apocalyptic are correct.
pick up at 5:13
For Consideration:
A local, ethnic god cannot call another god evil. It can only see the evil in its own people; hence, the massive destruction happened with the Hebrew God’s own people.
= = =
A non-personified, amoral, global God, the Sun / the Solar System does not produce ethnocentric or nationalistic apocalypticism.
Steefen, Argumentation Specialist
Jesus makes a better case that the Pharisees were evil than that Rome was evil.
Bart
The Gospel of John and the Gospel of Thomas does not present Jesus as an apocalypticist.
[At approximately the 8 minute mark in Lecture 14]
pick up at 13:34
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)