I am please to publish this guest post by Christopher Stanley, a scholar of the New Testament and Early Christianity who enjoyed a long career at St. Bonaventure University (after receiving his PhD in NT at Duke!)   The post deals with a topic most of us haven’t thought about before.  In the Jewish uprising against Rome that led to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 CE, were there *some* Jews who were actually opposed to the revolt and sympathized with the Romans?  The answer may be surprising.

This is a topic of Chris’s recent research and a novel that he has published, as he’ll explain in this intriguing post.

———

Anyone who has read Bart’s books is aware of the gulf that often separates scholarly interpretation from lay readings of the New Testament.  Some of the differences are apparent, such as questions about the authorship or historical reliability of the Gospels.  Others are less obvious.

A topic that arguably belongs under the latter heading is the New Testament authors’ engagement with their political context.  Explicit references to political authorities are uncommon apart from the trial of Jesus and the book of Acts, and injunctions to lobby, protest, or work for social and political change are virtually nonexistent.  The few texts that mention rulers speak primarily about paying your taxes, submitting to the authorities, and praying for their well-being.  It is thus no wonder that Christian history has been dominated by the belief that the New Testament is either apolitical or supports the status quo.

Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!

Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!

Learn More!