Block 2 - Ehrman, Pages 103-123

I like using Ehrman's book for two reasons. First, he writes well and wants to be understood by a reader who does not have much background in the topic (this can also be said for Borg). The second reason I like Ehrman's book is that he presents a very different perspective on the historical Jesus (apocalyptic prophet) compared to what you will find in most modern scholarly writings. Of course there are groups within modern Christianity that still look for an apocalyptic event of divine judgment in the near future, and they believe that such is what Jesus believed as well. Erhman's believes that Jesus believed all this and was flat out wrong.

In chapter 7 Ehrman presents a good introduction to Judaism in the time of Jesus. However, you will note that Ehrman uses more space than the other two discussing the apocalyptic dimensions of Judaism in Jesus' time. One thing Ehrman does well is show the connection between the resistance to foreign intervention in Jewish affairs in the past (especially during the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, circa 168-164 BCE) and how there is a repeated pattern of foreign desecration of Jewish land thereby provoking resistance, and this pattern of foreign desecration and Jewish resistance continues into and beyond the time of Jesus. Part of the reason Ehrman describes it this way is that modern scholars believe that the Jewish apocalyptic mindset originated in the resistance that results from the actions of Antiochus Epiphanes (the Maccabean revolt), as evidenced by the biblical book of Daniel (Many modern scholars believe that Daniel was written during the time of the Maccabean revolt, 160's BCE). The book of Daniel is the first truly Jewish book of apocalyptic prophecy (Ehrman does well in explaining the transition from "classical prophecy" to apocalypticism, pp 120-122). (An Aside: the use of the word "Hellenization" to describe the process of becoming Greek-like comes from the Greek word for Greece: Hellas. We call the country Greece because that is what the Latin speaking Romans called it.)

The whole matter of the various forms of resistance to the Greek rulers, and then later to the Romans after them, is one where it is difficult to know exactly how much the average Jewish person participated in any form of resistance. The ones who were willing to die for their Jewish faith were those for whom the Jewish religion was the centerpiece of their lives, and people for whom knowing and understanding the Jewish Law and its application to daily life was an important part of who they were. The Pharisees certainly fall into this category and likewise those whom scholars place in the category of zealots. But by Jesus' time the Pharisees were no longer directly involved in confrontational politics. (But they would be later during the revolt against Rome in 66 CE.)

Whether the average Jewish person would have been susceptible to thinking of participating in active resistance to Roman rule probably depends on their religious sentiments and personal experiences. Those who had had family members executed by the Romans or had seen their livelihood ruined by Roman oppression would more readily join such a group than those who had found a way to prosper under the Romans. This is in addition to those who would join up simply on the principle that foreign domination of the land is contrary to the Jewish Law, to say nothing of the continued periodic desecration of land and temple. In the New Testament there are two references to such resistance: unarmed resistance in Luke 13:1, and armed resistance in Acts 5:36-37. But the results are still the same, brutal slaughter by the Romans. In the second case, the uprisings by Theudas and Judas the Galilean, they began with the apocalyptic expectation that if they initiated the battle - the Lord God would intervene with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and win the battle for them. This is evidenced by the fact that they were small in numbers compared to the Romans garrisoned in and near Jerusalem and since they organized their revolt in the Judean desert and then marched up to Jerusalem (echoes of a literal reading of Isaiah 40:3 as a prophecy of divine deliverance for their time).

What is obviously missing in Ehrman's overview is the role of Herod the "Great" and the role of the High Priestly families in the religious/political/social setting of the Palestine into which Jesus was born. Ehrman is much more interested in setting the scene for us to see Jesus as a product of apocalyptic Judaism, than allowing for the possibility of a more nuanced view of the "Kingdom of God" in the teaching of Jesus.

Another note on Ehrman. When he speaks of the Pharisees being small in number and having some popular appeal but no political clout (page 110), we must not underestimate their ability to influence the practice of Judaism in Jesus' time simply by their knowledge of the Jewish law and their willingness to criticize anyone who transgresses the basic precepts of the law with regard to daily practice and ceremonial and sacrificial observances. They seem to have set the parameters for the debate on what it means for how to live one's daily life as a Jewish person. While Ehrman might say that the Pharisees, John the Baptist and his disciples and Jesus were all of an apocalyptic mindset, I believe the one thing they had most in common is that they (plus perhaps the Essenes) were the only Jewish groups who were interested in answering the question of what it means to live as a Jewish person each moment of every day. This was never a part of the Sadducees thinking, nor the average Jewish workingman or woman.

The average Jewish person probably thought of their religion mainly in terms of celebrating the annual festivals and honoring the sabbath in some way. We cannot be sure that many a common Jewish workingman would attend synagogue services on the sabbath as we might erroneously think for all the references to Jesus entering synagogues on the sabbath. Certainly every Pharisee would be there, and there is a good likelihood that many rabbis were members of the Pharisees. The observance of the sabbath is fundamentally a home based celebration. The expectation that all Jewish males would attend a synagogue service on the sabbath seems to have emerged as a regular practice after the time of Jesus. After all, there is nothing in the Jewish law about synagogue services, but the rules for celebrating the annual festivals are laid out in detail in the Law, and going to Jerusalem for one of the annual festivals might be the highlight of the year for the common working class people who were able to go.